Skip to main content

Full text of "State of Maryland uniform crime reports"

See other formats


50th ANNIVERSARY 

,1 
Folio 




1935 - 1985 




1984 

UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 



CRIME 

IN 

MARYLAND 



STATE OF MARYLAND 
CRIMINAL RECORDS CENTRAL REPOSITORY 

JUL ., 



^ &£&$'$*£& 



1975 



1984 



Members of the Criminal Records -Central Repository express 
their sympathy to the families of the following Maryland law 
enforcement officers who were killed in the line of duty: 



Mart Hudson 3 Jr. 
Wallace Johnson Mowbray 
Timothy B. Ridenour 
Donald Ralph Kline 
John E. Daly j Jr. 
John M. Frontczak 
Jimmy D. Halcomb 
Mark C. Featherstone 
Dennis L. Riley 
Paul N. Mitchell 
Charles A. Huckeba 
Gregg A. Presbury 
Edgar J. Rumpf 
Albert M. -Claggett IV 
James B. Swart 
Nelson F. Bell, Jr. 



David G. Levingood 
John E. Spencer 
William P. Mills 
George Morris 
William D. Albers 
Antonio M. Kelsey 
Philip C. Metz 
Ronald Tracey 
Raymond Hubbard 
Allen Johnson 
Gary L. Wade 
Richard Beavers 
Carlton Fletcher 
Samuel Snyder 
Robert John King 
Marcellus Ward 





1984 

STATE 

OF 

MARYLAND 



UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTS 

HARRY R. HUGHES, Governor 



FRANK A. HALL, Secretary, 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 



W.T. TRAVERS, JR., Superintendent, 
Maryland State Police 



H 
1 



CRIMINAL RECORDS 
CENTRAL REPOSITORY 



LAMONT EDWARDS, Director 



UNIFORM 

CRIME 

REPORTING 

SECTION 



FIRST LIEUTENANT FRANCIS J. TULLY, Assistant to 

the Director 

ROBERT J. SPANGLER, Field Records Representative 

ELEANOR D. MERCER, Office Clerk 

BEATRICE SHAPIRO, Steno Clerk 

DENISE SCHERER, Clerk Typist 




COLONEL W T TRAVERS. JR IU£(f* PIKESVIL- 208 

OOIJ 486 3IOI 



MARYLAND STATE POLICE 

June 6, 1985 



The Honorable Harry Hughes 
Governor of Maryland 
State House 
Annapolis, Maryland 21404 

Dear Governor Hughes : 

Pursuant to Article 83B, Sections 9 and 10, of 
the Annotated Code of Maryland, the Maryland State Police 
respectfully submits the 1984 Uniform Crime Report for your 
information and review. 

The information presented here represents the 
tenth annual report produced by the Maryland Uniform Crime 
Reporting Program. The statistics presented were compiled 
from monthly reports submitted to Criminal Records-Central 
Repository by all law enforcement agencies throughout Mary- 
land. Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy 
and completeness of the published information. 

This information is presented with the hope that 
it will be of valuable assistance to law enforcement per- 
sonnel and members of the Executive and Legislative branches 
of government. It should be helpful in planning programs 
and legislation to combat criminal activity in Maryland. 

Sincerely, 

Superintendent 

WTT : imp 





Can* iEnf orttmmt (£aa? of iEtfjtra 

Aa a Ham Ettfomtnent ®ff trrr, ».,, fundamentally u /. 

J<?«/<? mankind; to 5a.feaua.rd lives and properly; to protect the innocent ayainst 
deception, the wean ayainst oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful 
ayainst violence or disorder; and to respect the (constitutional riahts of all 
men to liberty, eauality and justice. 



lain lou ra- 



il tUtil heep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintc 
aeous calm in the face of danger, scorn, or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and 
be constantly mindful of the welfare of others, ^rtonest in thought and deed 
in both my personal and of ficial life, ^r will be exemplary in obeying the laws 
of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever Jr See or hear of 
a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my off icial capacity will be 
hept ever Secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. 

It lUtll never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animos- 
ities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime 
and with relentless prosecution of criminals, _/ wilt enforce the law courteously 
and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employiny 
unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities. 

I fPninUtZ£ the badge of my office as a Symbol of public faith, and 
Jr accept it as a public trust to be held So tony as Jr am true to the ethics of 
the police service. Jr will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, 
dedicating myself before Cfod to my chosen profession . . . law enforcement. 



iv 



■ 



r ACKNOWLEDGMENT 



: 



On behalf of all the Maryland State Uniform Crime Contri- 
butors, a special appreciation is extended to the following for their 
continued support of the program: 

Colonel Charles Kelly 
Bowie State College 

Sheriff Jack DeWitt 
Cecil County Sheriff's Office 

Chief Robert E. Giles 
Cumberland Police Department 

Captain Walter E. Chase, Sr. 
Easton Police Department 

General Boyd Cook 
Sgt/Major Charles Frick 
Pikesville Military Reservation 

Chief James L. Phillips 
Salisbury State College 

Sheriff Glenn Bowman 
Washington County Sheriff's Office 

Our U.C.R. - C.J.I.S. Seminars were a huge success thanks 
to their assistance. Appreciation is also extended to Major Peter C. 
Shaulis, Baltimore City Police Department, and Mr. Edward Patch, Anne 
Arundel County Police Department, for their patience, expertise and 
willingness to assist the Program. 

A special thanks is extended to Mr. Ray Franklin, Ms Roberta 
Gracie and the staff of the Maryland Police Training Commission, and 
Mr. Richard Tamberrino of the Maryland Department of Public Safety, 
for their assistance in the preparation of the tenth annual report. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 



Letter of Transmittal iii 

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics iv 

Acknowledgement v 

Introduction 3 

Classification of Offenses 11 

Crime Factors 19 

Crime Index 21 

Maryl and Offense Data 25 

Crime Index Offenses 27 

Murder 36 

Rape 42 

Robbery 46 

Aggravated Assaul t 52 

Breaking or Entering 56 

Larceny 62 

Motor Vehicle Theft 68 

Arson 72 

Index Offense Data 77 

Municipality Crime Rates 113 

Maryland Arrest Data 122 

Law Enforcement Employee Data 134 

Law Enforcement Officers Killed 135 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaulted 137 

Law Enforcement Empl oyee Data 1 49 



vi 



LISTS OF TABLES AND CHARTS 



Crime Index and Clearances for Maryland 1 

Maryl and UCR System Fl ow 9 

Crime Index Offenses-Volume by Month 30 

Violent Crime-Volume by Month 31 

Property Crime-Vol ume by Month 32 

Stolen Property-Analysis of Value Stolen & Recovered 33 

Murder-Vol ume by Month 38 

Murder-Distribution by Circumstances 39 

Murder-Distribution by Type of Weapon 40 

Rape-Vol ume by Month 44 

Robbery-Vol ume by Month 49 

Robbery-Distribution by Nature 50 

Aggravated Assaul t-Vol ume by Month 54 

Breaking or Entering-Volume by Month 58 

Breaking or Entering-Distribution by Nature 59 

Larceny- Vol ume by Month 64 

Larceny-5 Year Distribution by Nature 65 

Motor Vehicle Theft-Volume by Month 70 

Arson-Vol ume by Month 74 

Arson-Distribution by Type of Property 75 

Maryland UCR Crime Index Report by Region, County, 

& Agency 80 

Municipality Crime Index 114 

Arrests-Juvenile 125 

Arrests-Adult 126 

Arrest Rate-5 Year Trend 1 27 

Arrests-Sex & Race of Persons Arrested 129 

Arrests-Age of Persons Arrested 1 30 

Maryland Arrest Report by Region, County & Agency (See Supplemental Report) 

Police Assaul ted-Circumstance 138 

Law Enforcement Officers Assaul ted-By Agency 139 

Law Enforcement Employee Rates 150 

Law Enforcement Data by Agency 151 

Sworn Law Enforcement Employee Data-10 Year County Trend.. 157 



vn 



CRIME INDEX FOR MARYLAND 













10 YEAR TREND 


















1975 


1976 


1977 


1978 


1979 


1980 


1 1 .1 


1982 


1983 


1984 


ToUl 












Murder 














Offenses 




435 


352 


333 


338 


406 


399 


422 


431 


367 


354 


3,837 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


10.6 


8.5 


8.0 


8.2 


9.8 


9.5 


9.9 


10.1 


8.5 


8.1 


9.1 


Percent Cleared 




84 


90 


83 


81 


76 


77 


81 


81 


77 


B2 


81 


National Average 




78 


79 


75 


76 


73 


72 


72 


74 


76 




75 












Rape 














Offenses 




1,288 


1,327 


1,439 


1 ,476 


1,628 


1,681 


1,663 


1,596 


1,412 


1,644 


15,154 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


60.8 


64.1 


69.5 


71.3 


78.5 


80.2 


78.1 


74.8 


65.7 


75.6 


71.9 


Percent Cleared 




54 


61 


58 


56 


57 


54 


58 


58 


59 


56 


57 


National Average 




51 


52 


51 


50 


48 


49 


48 


51 


52 


* 


50 












Robbery 














Offenses 




14,104 


12,247 


12,088 


12,828 


13,745 


16,462 


18,095 


15,377 


14,950 


13,113 


143,009 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


344.2 


295.5 


292.1 


309.6 


331.3 


392.7 


424.7 


360.5 


347.7 


301.5 


339.9 


Percent Cleared 




28 


31 


29 


27 


26 


23 


23 


25 


25 


26 


26 


National Average 




27 


27 


27 


26 


25 


24 


24 


25 


26 


* 


26 










Aggravated Assault 














Offenses 




13,251 


12,322 


14,856 


15,686 


17,337 


17,182 


17,691 


18,845 


18,007 


19,369 


164,546 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


323.4 


297.3 


358.9 


378.-6 


417.9 


409.9 


415.2 


441.9 


418.8 


445.4 


390.7 


Percent Cleared 




59 


57 


63 


59 


56 


57 


55 


54 


55 


54 


57 


National Average 




64 


63 


62 


62 


59 


59 


58 


60 


61 


* 


61 












Burglary 














Offenses 




57,936 


56,351 


57,938 


58,901 


62,657 


71,130 


70,762 


60,547 


52,697 


51,498 


600,417 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


1,413.8 


1,359.8 


1,399.8 


1,421.7 


1,510.2 


1,696.8 


1,660.7 


1,419.6 


1,225.5 


1,184.1 


1,429.3 


Percent Cleared 




25 


23 


22 


20 


19 


17 


17 


17 


17 


17 


19 


National Average 




18 


17 


16 


16 


15 


14 


14 


15 


15 




16 












Larc 


ENY 














Offenses 




134,001 


134,337 


131,516 


134,012 


145,278 


152,089 


152,544 


142,903 


127,443 


123,625 


1,377,748 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


3,269.9 


3,241.7 


3,177.5 


3,234.7 


3,501.5 


3,628.1 


3,580.0 


3,350.6 


2,963.8 


2,842.6 


3,279.0 


Percent Cleared 




20 


19 


19 


19 


18 


18 


18 


18 


19 


18 


19 


National Average 




14 


19 


20 


20 


19 


18 


19 


19 


19 


* 


19 










Motor Vehicle Theft 














Offenses 




21,192 


17,772 


17,732 


17,599 


20,217 


18,885 


18,486 


16,719 


15,688 


17,284 


181,574 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


517.1 


428.9 


428.4 


424.8 


487.3 


450.5 


433.8 


392.0 


364.8 


397.4 


432.5 


Percent Cleared 




21 


20 


22 


20 


18 


16 


17 


15 


15 


16 


18 


National Average 




14 


14 


15 


15 


14 


14 


14 


14 


15 


* 


14 












Grand Total 














Offenses 




242,207 


234,708 


235,902 


240,840 


261,268 


277,828 


279,663 


256,418 


230,564 


226,887 


2,486,285 


Rate per 100,000 


Inhabitants 


5,910.4 


5,663.8 


5,699.5 


5,813.2 


6,297.2 


6,627.6 


6,563.3 


6,012.2 


5,362.0 


5.217.0 


5,916.6 


Percent Cleared 




24 


23 


24 


23 


22 


20 


21 


21 


22 


22 


22 


National Average 




21 


21 


21 


21 


20 


19 


19 


20 


21 


* 


20 



'National average for 1984 not available as of printing of this book. 



INTRODUCTION 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program is one of the 
steps that have been taken in the establishment of an effective State- 
wide Criminal Justice Information System. This particular phase of 
the CJIS is oriented toward law enforcement and has brought about a 
statewide uniform method of collecting crime statistical data, pro- 
ducing a consolidated annual report concerning crime in Maryland, and 
reporting statewide crime statistics from a single agency to the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

National Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The counterpart of the statewide UCR Program is the National 
UCR Program which is under the direction of the Federal Bureau of In- 
vestigation. This national program is the result of a need for nation- 
wide and uniform compilation of law enforcement statistics. Uniform 
Crime Reports were first collected in 1930 after being developed by 
a committee of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Today the IACP continues to serve in an advisory capacity 
to the FBI in its operation of the program. 

Crime statistics voluntarily submitted by individual law 
enforcement agencies from all fifty states are presented annually in 
the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports Publication entitled "Crime in the 
United States". 

In the last several years the FBI has been actively assis- 
ting individual states in the development of statewide programs of 
law enforcement statistics compatible with the National UCR Program. 
In taking advantage of the invaluable assistance provided, Maryland 
has developed its own statewide program for collection of law enforce- 
ment statistics. 



Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program involves the 
uniform compilation, classification, and analysis of crime statistics 
reported by all law enforcement agencies of the state pursuant to 
guides and regulations prescribed by law. 

The responsibility and authority for collection and dissemi- 
nation of UCR data was given to the Maryland Department of Public 
Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) under Article 88B, 
Sections 9 and 10, of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The UCR Program 
became operational January 1, 1975. 



Purpose and Objectives 

In keeping with the recommendation of the President's Com- 
mission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, the 
Maryland UCR Program was planned for eventual growth into a complete 
and integrated offender based Criminal Justice Information System. 
Under this program, each offender arrested in Maryland will be tracked 
through the entire criminal justice system from time of arrest through 
the courts to the correctional system where his exit (Parole, expira- 
tion of sentence, etc.) will be recorded. In this manner, a complete 
"criminal history" on individual offenders will be available for use 
by the police, courts, and correctional agencies in Maryland. In 
addition, statistical data derived from the CJIS Program will provide 
assistance in determining the overall efficiency of the criminal jus- 
tice system in Maryland and will make effective management studies 
possible. 



are : 



The fundamental objectives of the Maryland UCR Program 



1. Inform the governor, legislature, other governmental 
officials, and the public as to the nature of the 
crime problem in Maryland - its magnitude and its 
trends . 

2. Provide law enforcement administrators with criminal 
statistics for administrative and operational use. 

3. Determine who commits crimes by age, sex, race and 
other attributes in order to find the proper focus 
for crime prevention and enforcement. 

4. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
workload and effectiveness of Maryland's Criminal 
Justice System. 

5. Provide base data and statistics to measure the 
effects of prevention and deterrence programs. 

6. Provide base data and statistics for research to 
improve the efficiency, effectiveness and perfor- 
mance of criminal justice agencies. 

7. Provide base data to assist in the assessment of 
social and other causes of crime for the develop- 
ment of theories of criminal behavior. 

8. Provide the FBI with complete UCR data to be in- 
cluded in the national crime reports. 



Development 

Effective September, 1972, the first federal grant was 
awarded to the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services 
(State Police) by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to 
provide money to initiate a Statewide Uniform Crime Reporting Program 
in Maryland. A committee for the implementation of this Program was 
then established by State Police. 

The committee made studies of the federal program, as well 
as several state UCR Programs, which were operational at that time. 
Forms, tally books, and the Maryland UCR Manual were developed, printed 
and distributed to all contributing agencies. Questionnaires concern- 
ing each law enforcement agency's record keeping systems were distri- 
buted to determine their capability to fully participate in the State 
Program. 

In September, 1974, an additional grant was awarded to the 
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (State Police) 
by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration for the purpose of 
hiring Field Records Representatives to serve as liaison officers 
between the State Program and the contributing law enforcement agen- 
cies. Also, additional clerical support for the State Program was 
provided in the grant. 

During the developmental phase, several workshops were 
held in various parts of the State to present the UCR Program in 
detail to participating agencies. Since that time, supplemental 
workshops have been held as needed. 

During 1975, the first year of operating, the UCR Staff 
concentrated its efforts in assisting requesting law enforcement 
agencies in devising or improving their record keeping systems. 
The UCR Staff continues to keep the agencies trained in UCR and 
to provide assistance where needed. Agencies contributing to the 
UCR Program have increased from 102 agencies in 1975 to 131 in 
1984. The UCR Section collects crime information from these 131 
agencies and publishes quarterly releases reflecting crime trends. 
In addition, this is the tenth annual report produced by the UCR 
Staff containing an in-depth analysis of all information collected 
in the UCR Program. 

During 1984, statistics were collected concerning Battered 
Spouses and a seventh Maryland Battered Spouse Report was produced. 

Reporting Procedures 

Under the Maryland UCR Program, law enforcement agencies 
are required to submit specified Uniform Crime Reports. The necess- 
ary information for each of the required reports is gathered from 
each agency's record of complaints, investigations and arrests. 



For those agencies desiring assistance in developing sound record 
systems, or improving their present system, a copy of the FBI's 
Manual of Pol ice Records has been provided, along with training of 
records personnel by UCR Field Representatives. 

Crime data and information is submitted by state, county, 
and municipal law enforcement agencies on a daily, monthly, and 
annual basis. The daily report consists of the fingerprints of all 
persons arrested, detained, or charged with any crime or offense in 
Maryland. 

On a monthly basis, organized state, municipal, and county 
law enforcement agencies report the number of offenses known to them 
in the following crime categories: 

(1) Criminal Homicide 

(2) Forcible Rape 

(3) Robbery 

(4) Assault 

(5) Breaking or Entering 

(6) Larceny 

(7) Motor Vehicle Theft 

(8) Arson* 

The count of offenses is taken from the record of complaints 
received by law enforcement agencies from victims, witnesses, other 
sources, or discovered by them during their own operation. Complaints 
determined by subsequent investigation to be unfounded are eliminated 
from the count. The resulting number of "actual offenses known to law 
enforcement agencies" in these crime categories is reported without 
regard to whether anyone is arrested, stolen property is recovered, 
local prosecutive policy, or any other consideration. Reported offen- 
ses are recorded by the municipality and county in which they occur. 
Municipal law enforcement agencies report those crimes which are com- 
mitted within the cities; county law enforcement agencies and state 
police report those crimes which occur in the counties outside the 
city. Law enforcement agencies also report on a monthly basis, supple- 
mental offense information such as the value of property stolen and 
recovered as well as circumstances surrounding homicides and other 
pertinent data. Additional monthly reports of persons arrested are 
submitted. These reports provide information concerning the age, sex 
and race of persons arrested by each individual law enforcement agency. 
Also, a police disposition of all juveniles arrested is collected. 

In addition, police employee data is collected on an annual 
basis. 



Verification Process 

An obvious concern in the collection of crime statistics 
for law enforcement agencies throughout the state is the uniformity 

♦Monthly arson reports are submitted for law enforcement agencies by 
the State Fire Marshal's Office and designated county agencies. 



and accuracy of data received. Program aides such as guides and in- 
structions do not necessarily guarantee the accuracy and correctness 
of the reports submitted by the contributors. Additional controls, 
therefore, are necessary. 

Each report received by the UCR Section is recorded, examined 
and verified for mathematical accuracy, and possibly more important, 
for reasonableness. The verification process includes numerous checks 
to ensure the validity of information. The elimination of duplication 
of reporting by individual contributors received particular attention. 
Minor errors are corrected by telephone contact with the contributors. 
Substantial variations and errors are adjusted through personal con- 
tacts with individual contributing agencies. The personal contacts are 
invaluable to the accuracy and quality of reporting. Field Representa- 
tives are engaged in a constant educational effort, and as such, provide 
a vital link between the UCR Program and the contributor. 



Population Data 

The computation of crime rates as they appear in this report 
by municipality, county, and state are based on 1984 population esti- 
mates provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation through the co- 
operation and assistance of the United States Bureau of Census. 



Limitations of a Uniform Crime Reporting Program 

Information currently collected by the Maryland Program is 
generally the same as that gathered by the National system, and the 
methods of classifying and scoring offenses and arrests are the same. 
This readily enables comparisons with other states and with the nation, 
as a whole. However, there are limitations to the information collected 
which should be clearly understood before any conclusions are drawn from 
the UCR data presented in this report. 

The main goal of the UCR Program is to furnish police adminis- 
trators with a measure of their activities and operational problems as 
indicated by the number of reported offenses, arrests, clearances, and 
the like. 

A first step in the control of crime is to ascertain the 
true dimensions of the problem. However, present statistics as gather- 
ed by the UCR Program measure neither the real incidence of crime nor 
the full amount of economic loss to victims. Information regarding 
number of offenses and clearances is collected only for the eight 
Part I crimes. Value and type of property stolen and recovered data 
is requested only for property stolen in Part I offenses. For Part II 
offenses (except non-aggravated assault), the only information sub- 
mitted is the number of arrests for these crimes according to the age, 



sex, and race of the subject. Consequently, there is no record of the 
actual number of these offenses occurring, nor is there a calculation 
made for property loss, as in cases of vandalism and embezzlement. 

The Crime Index does not explicitly take into account the 
varying degrees of seriousness of its seven components. Each crime 
receives the same weight as it is added to the Index. Consequently, 
an auto theft is counted the same as a murder, and an aggravated 
assault is weighted equally with an attempted breaking or entering. 
Any review of crime must consider the volume, rate, and trend of each 
offense that comprises the Index and the relationship between these 
seven crimes*. 

The Maryland and National Uniform Crime Reporting Programs 
are designed to measure offenses committed and persons arrested, and 
difficulties can arise if this distinction is not kept clearly in 
mind. Crimes relate to events, but arrests relate to persons. Un- 
like traffic violations where there is usually one event, with one 
violation and one offender, a single criminal act can involve several 
crimes, several offenders, and several victims. Relating specific 
crimes to the criminal, or specific offenses to characteristics of 
those arrested, is generally beyond the scope of the present Uniform 
Crime Reporting system. 

Juvenile crime and arrest statistics, because of their 
nature, are another area of misunderstanding. Many juvenile offen- 
ders are handled informally and, as a consequence, inaccurate or 
incomplete recording of the event or action may result. Procedures 
for handling juveniles vary between departments, more so than the 
handling of adult offenders. Furthermore, the degree of juvenile 
involvement in solved offenses is probably seriously misunderstood, 
because juvenile participation in clearances is recorded only when 
juveniles are exclusively involved. When both adults and juveniles 
are subjects in a clearance, the juvenile participation is not re- 
ported. 

The preceding comments should not be viewed as an indict- 
ment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program which, admittedly, is 
designed for the operational requirements of law enforcement agencies. 
While current methods of gathering and reporting crime and arrest data 
provide a less than complete picture of criminality in our society, 
there is at present no other informational system in general use that 
will more adequately perform this task. 



*Arson is not used at this time in computing the Crime Index. 



MARYLAND UCR SYSTEM FLOW 



Field 

Liaison 

Unit 



Law 

Enforcement 

Agency 



UCR 
Returns 




Verified 




National Copy 



Maryland Copy 




Victim 



FBI 



Key Punch 



Hard Copy 
File 



Attorney 
General 



Governor 



CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENSES 



Uniformity in reporting under the Maryland System is based 
upon the proper classification of offenses by police. 

The adoption of the Federal System of Uniform Crime Report- 
ing included the utilization of the offense classifications of that 
system. Law enforcement in this state has made accurate application 
of those classifications in the reports submitted to the Maryland 
Uniform Crime Reporting System. 



Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting 

Offenses in Uniform Crime Reporting are divided into two 
groupings designated as Part I and Part II offenses. Crime Index 
offenses are included among the Part I offenses. Offense and arrest 
information is reported for the Part I offenses on a monthly basis, 
whereas only arrest information is reported for Part II offenses. 

The Part I offenses are as follows: 

1. CRIMINAL HOMICIDE -- (a) Murder and non-negligent 
manslaughter: All willful felonious homicides as 
distinguished from deaths caused by negligence. 
Excludes attempts to kill, assaults to kill, sui- 
cides, accidental deaths, or justifiable homicides. 
Justifiable homicides are limited to: (1) The 
killing of a person by a law enforcement officer 

in line of duty; and (2) The killing of a person 
in the act of committing a felony by a private 
citizen, (b) Manslaughter by negligence: Any 
death which the police investigation established 
was primarily attributable to gross negligence of 
some individual other than the victim. 

2. FORCIBLE RAPE -- The carnal knowledge of a female, 
forcibly and against her will in the categories of 
rape by force, assault to rape, and attempted rape. 
Excludes statutory offenses (no force used - victim 
under age of consent). 

3. ROBBERY -- Stealing or taking anything of value from 
the care, custody, or control of a person by force or 
by violence or by putting in fear, such as strong-arm 
robbery, stickups, armed robbery, assaults to rob, 
and attempts to rob. 

4. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT -- Assault with intent to kill or 
for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury 
by shooting, cutting, stabbing, maiming, poisoning, 
scalding, or by the use of acids, explosives, or 
other means. Excludes simple assaults. 



11 



5. BURGLARY - BREAKING OR ENTERING -- Burglary, house- 
breaking, safecracking, or any breaking or unlawful 
entry of a structure with the intent to commit a 
felony or a theft. Includes attempted forcible entry. 

6. LARCENY-THEFT (except motor vehicle theft) -- The un- 
lawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of 
property from the possession or constructive possession 
of another. Thefts of bicycles, automobile accessories, 
shoplifting, pocket-picking, or any stealing of property 
or article which is not taken by force and violence or 
by fraud. Excludes embezzlement, "con" games, forgery,, 
worthless checks, etc. 

7. MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT -- Unlawful taking or stealing or 
attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A motor vehicle 

is a self-propelled vehicle that travels on the surface 
but not on rails. Specifically excluded from this cate- 
gory are motor boats, construction equipment, airplanes, 
and farming equipment. 

8. ARSON -- Include all arrests for violations of state 
laws and municipal ordinances relating to arson and 
attempted arson. Include: any willful or malicious 
burning or attempts to burn, with or without intent 
to defraud, a dwelling house, church, college, jail, 
meeting house, public building or any building, ship 
or other vessel, motor vehicle or aircraft; contents 
of building, personal property of another, goods or 
chattels, crops, trees, fences, gates, grain, vege- 
table products, lumber, woods, cranberry bogs, marshes, 
meadows, etc. 

If personal injury results from the arson, the situa- 
tion would be classified as aggravated assault. In 
the event a death results from arson, the incident 
would be classified as murder. 

The Part II Offenses are as follows: 

9. OTHER ASSAULTS -- Assaults and attempted assaults which 
do not result in serious or aggravated injury to the 
victim are included as other assaults. Examples of 
local jurisdiction offense titles which would be in- 
cluded in "other assaults" are: Simple assault, minor 
assault, assault and battery, injury by culpable negli- 
gence, resisting or obstructing an officer, intimidation, 
coercion, hazing, attempts to commit above. 



1? 



10. FORGERY AND COUNTERFEITING -- In this class are placed 
all offenses dealing with the making, altering, utter- 
ing or possessing, with intent to defraud, anything 
false in the semblance of that which is true. 

Include: Altering or forging public and other records. 
Making, altering, forging, or counterfeiting bills, notes 
drafts, tickets, checks, credit cards, etc. Forging 
wills, deeds, notes, bonds, seals, trade-marks, etc. 

Counterfeiting coins, plates, bank notes, checks, etc. 

Possessing or uttering forged or counterfeited instru- 
ments. 

Erasures. 

Signing the name of another or fictitious person with 
intent to defraud. 

Using forged labels. 

Possession, manufacture, etc., of counterfeiting appara- 
tus. 

Selling goods with altered, forged, or counterfeited 
trade-marks. 

All attempts to commit the above. 

11. FRAUD -- Fraudulent conversion and obtaining money or 
property by false pretenses. Includes bad checks, 
confidence games, etc., except forgeries and counter- 
feiting. 

12. EMBEZZLEMENT -- Misappropriation or misapplication of 
money or property entrusted to one's care, custody, or 
control . 

13. STOLEN PROPERTY; BUYING, RECEIVING, POSSESSING — In- 
clude in this class all offenses of buying, receiving, 
and possessing stolen property, as well as all attempts 
to commit any of these offenses. 

14. VANDALISM -- Vandalism consists of the willful or mali- 
cious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement 
of any public or private property, real or personal, 
without consent of the owner or person having custody or 
control, by cutting, tearing, breaking, marking, paint- 
ing, drawing, covering with filth, or any other such 
means as may be specified by local law. This offense 
covers a wide range of malicious behavior directed at 
property, such as: cutting auto tires, drawing obscene 



13 



pictures on public restroom walls, smashing windows, 
destroying school records, tipping over gravestones, 
defacing library books, etc. Count all arrests for 
the above, including attempts. 

15. WEAPONS: CARRYING, POSSESSING, ETC. -- This class 
deals with weapon offenses, regulatory in nature, 
such as : 

Manufacture, sale, or possession of deadly weapons. 

Carrying deadly weapons, concealed or openly. 

Using, manufacturing, etc., silencers. 

Furnishing deadly weapons to minors. 

Aliens possessing deadly weapons. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

16. PROSTITUTION AND COMMERCIALIZED VICE -- Include in 
this class the sex offenses of a commercialized 
nature, such as : 

Prostitution 

Keeping bawdy house, disorderly house, or house of 
ill fame. 

Pandering, procuring, transporting, or detaining 
women for immoral purposes, etc. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

17. SEX OFFENSES -- (Except forcible rape and prostitution 
and commercialized vice.) Include offenses against 
chastity, common decency, morals, and the like, such 
as: 

Adultery and fornication. 

Buggery 

Incest 

Indecent exposure 

Indecent liberties 

Intercourse with an insane, epileptic, or venereally 
diseased person. 



14 



Seduction 

Sodomy or crime against nature. 

Statutory rape (no force). 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

18. DRUG ABUSE LAWS -- Drug abuse law arrests are re- 
quested on the basis of the narcotics used. Make 
the following subdivisions of drug abuse law arrests: 

Include all arrests for violations of state and local 
laws, specifically those relating to the unlawful 
possession, sale, use, growing, manufacturing, and 
making of narcotic drugs. 

a. Opium or cocaine and their derivatives (morphine, 
heroin, codeine). 

b. Marijuana. 

c. Synthetic narcotics—manufactured narcotics which 
can cause true drug addiction (demerol , metha- 
dones). 

d. Dangerous nonnarcotic drugs (barbiturates, benze- 
drine). 

19. GAMBLING -- All charges which relate to promoting, 
permitting, or engaging in gambling are included in 
this category. To provide a more refined collection 
of gambling arrests, the following breakdown of gamb- 
ling arrests should be furnished. 

a. Bookmaking (horse and sport book). 

b. Numbers and lottery. 

c. All other. 

20. OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY AND CHILDREN -- Include 
here all charges of nonsupport and neglect or abuse 
of family and children, such as: 

Desertion, abandonment, or nonsupport of wife or child, 

Neglect or abuse of child. (If injury is serious, 
score as aggravated assault.) 

Nonpayment of alimony. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 



15 



21. DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE — This class is limited 
to the driving or operating of any vehicle or common 
carrier while drunk or under the influence of liquor 
or narcotics. Include: 

Operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. 

Operating an engine, train, streetcar, boat, etc., 
while intoxicated. 

22. LIQUOR LAWS -- With the exception of "drunkenness" 
(offense #23), and "driving under the influence" 
(offense #21), liquor law violations, state or local, 
are placed in this class. Include: 

Manufacture, sale, transporting, furnishing, possess- 
ing, etc., intoxicating liquor. 

Maintaining unlawful drinking places. 

Advertising and soliciting orders for intoxicating 
1 iquor. 

Bootlegging. 

Operating still . 

Furnishing liquor to a minor or intemperate person. 

Using a vehicle for illegal transportation of liquor. 

Drinking on train or public conveyance. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

23. DRUNKENNESS -- Not reported in Maryland. 

24. DISORDERLY CONDUCT -- In this class are placed all 
charges of committing a breach of the peace. 
Include: 

Affray. 

Unlawful assembly. 

Disturbing the peace. 

Disturbing meetings. 

Disorderly conduct in state institutions, at court, 
at fairs, on trains, or public conveyances, etc. 

Disguised and masked persons; night riders. 



16 



Blasphemy, profanity, and obscene language. 

Desecrating flag. 

Refusing to assist an officer. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

25. VAGRANCY -- Include: 
Vagrancy. 
Begging. 

Loitering (persons 18 and over). 

26. ALL OTHER OFFENSES -- Include in this class e^ery other 
state or local offense not included in offenses 1 to 25. 
such as: 

Admitting minors to improper places. 

Abduction and compelling to marry. 

Abortion (death resulting from abortion is a homicide, 
offense class la). 

Bigamy and polygamy. 

Blackmail and extortion. 

Bribery. 

Combination in restraint of trade; trusts, monopolies. 

Contempt of court. 

Criminal anarchism. 

Criminal syndicalism. 

Discrimination; unfair competition. 

Kidnapping. 

Marriage within prohibited degrees. 

Offenses contributing to juvenile delinquency (except 
as provided for in offenses 1 to 28 inclusive), such 
as employment of children in immoral vocations or 
practices, admitting minors to improper place, etc. 



17 



Perjury and subornation of perjury. 

Possession, repair, manufacture, etc., of burglar's 
tools. 

Possession or sale of obscene literature, pictures, etc. 

Public nuisances. 

Riot and rout. 

Trespass. 

Unlawfully bringing weapons into prisons or hospitals. 

Unlawfully bringing drugs or liquor into state prisons, 
hospitals, etc.; furnishing to convicts. 

Unlawful disinterment of the dead and violation of 
sepulture. 

Unlawful use, possession, etc., of explosives. 

Violation of state regulatory laws and municipal 
ordinances (this does not include those offenses or 
regulations which belong in the above classes). 

Violation of quarantine. 

All offenses not otherwise classified. 

All attempts to commit any of the above. 

27. SUSPICION -- While "suspicion" is not an offense, it 
is the ground for many arrests in those jurisdictions 
where the law permits. After examination by the police, 
the prisoner is either formally charged or released. 
Those formally charged are entered in one of the Part I 
or II offense classes. This class is limited to "sus- 
picion" arrests where persons arrested are released by 
the pol ice. 

28. CURFEW AND LOITERING LAWS -- (JUVENILES) -- Count all 
arrests made by your department for violation of local 
curfew or loitering ordinances where such laws exist. 

29. RUN-AWAY (JUVENILES) -- For the purpose of Uniform Crime 
Reporting Program, report in this category apprehensions 
for protective custody as defined by your local statute. 
Count arrests made by other jurisdictions of run-aways 
from your jurisdiction. Do not include protective cus- 
tody actions with respect to run-aways you take for 
other jurisdictions. 



18 



CRIME FACTORS 



Statistics gathered under the Uniform Crime Reporting 
Program are submitted by the law enforcement agencies of Maryland 
and project a statewide view of crime. Awareness of the presence 
of certain crime factors, which may influence the resulting volume 
and type of statistics presented, is necessary if fair and equitable 
conclusions are to be drawn. These crime influencing factors are 
present, to some degree, in every community and their presence 
affects, in varying degrees, the crime experience of that community. 
Attempts at comparison of crime figures between communities should 
not be made without first considering the individual factors present 
in each community. 

Crime, as an outgrowth of society, remains a social prob- 
lem of grave concern and the police are limited in their role to its 
suppression and detection. As stated by the President's Commission 
on Law Enforcement and Administration of Criminal Justice in their 
report "The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society" (1967 - Page 92): 

"But the fact that the police deal daily with crime 
does not mean that they have unlimited power to 
prevent it, or reduce it, or deter it. The police 
did not create and cannot resolve the social condi- 
tions that stimulate crime. They did not start and 
cannot stop the convulsive social changes that are 
taking place in America. They do not enact the laws 
that they are required to enforce, nor do they dis- 
pose of the criminals they arrest. The police are 
only one part of the criminal justice system; the 
criminal justice system is only one part of the 
government; and the government is only one part of 
society. Insofar as crime is a social phenomenon, 
crime prevention is the responsibility of every part 
of society. The criminal process is limited to case 
by case operations, one criminal or one crime at a 
time. " 

Set forth below are some of the conditions which will, by 
type and volume, affect the crime that occurs from place to place: 

Density and size of the community population and the 
metropolitan area of which it is a part. 

Composition of the population with reference particu- 
larly to age, sex and race. 

Economic status of the population. 

Relative stability of population, including commuters, 
seasonal, and other transient types. 



19 



Climate, including seasonal weather conditions. 

Educational, recreational, and religious characteristics. 

Standards governing appointments to the police force. 

Policies of the prosecuting officials and the courts. 

Attitude of the public toward law enforcement problems. 

The administrative and investigative efficiency of the 
local law enforcement agency, including the degree of 
adherence to crime reporting standards. 

Organization and cooperation of adjoining and overlapping 
police jurisdictions. 



20 



CRIME INDEX 



The tabulations presented in the tables, graphs, and charts 
in this publication indicate the volume and distribution of crime in 
Maryland on the basis of a Crime Index. The crime figures are broken 
down by agency, county, regional, and state totals. 

The total number of criminal acts that occur is unknown, but 
those that are reported to law enforcement provide the first means of 
a count. Not all crimes are of sufficient importance to be significant 
in an index; and not all important crimes occur with enough regularity 
to be meaningful in an index. With these considerations in mind, the 
crimes below were selected as a group to furnish a convenient measure 
of the crime problem: 

1. Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 

2. Forcible Rape 

3. Robbery 

4. Aggravated Assault 

5. Breaking or Entering 

6. Larceny-Theft 

7. Motor Vehicle Theft 

8. Arson* 

These offenses were selected because they are serious either by nature 
or frequency of occurrence. 

The crime counts set forth in this publication are actual 
offenses established by police investigation. When police receive a 
complaint of a crime and the follow-up investigation discloses no crime 
occurred, it is "unfounded". 

In 1984, police investigations "unfounded" 9 percent of the 
complaints concerning Index Offenses, ranging from 1 percent in the 
Aggravated Assault category to 17 percent in the Motor Vehicle Theft 
and Breaking or Entering category. When compared to 1983, there were 
1 percent "unfounded" in the Aggravated Assault category, and 17 per- 
cent in the Motor Vehicle Theft category. 



Calculation of Rates and Trends 



The Uniform Crime Reporting Program provides data for police 
executives to measure local problems. To facilitate this function, it 
is sometimes necessary to convert the data into rates, percentages, or 
trends. Certain guidelines are presented. 



Crime Rates 



One of the most meaningful crime statistics is the Crime 
Rate. This rate is the number of offenses per 100,000 inhabitants 

r 1984 arson statistics are not included in the Crime Index in this 
report . 

21 



This rate can be calculated regardless of the number of inhabitants 
in your city or county. To compute rates, divide your city's popu- 
lation by 100,000 and divide the number of offenses in each class 
by that answer. The answer is the number of offenses in each class 
per 100,000 and is your Crime Rate for that offense. 

Example : 

a. Population for your jurisdiction 75,000 

b. Number of burglaries for your 
jurisdiction for a year 215 

Divide 75,000 by 100,000 .75 

Divide 215 by .75 = 286.7 

Your burglary rate: 286.7 per 100,000 inhabitants 

The number of .75 can now be divided into your totals in any offense 
class to produce a Crime Rate for that offense. 

This same computation can be completed to give you arrest rates per 
100,000 inhabitants. 

Clearance Rates 

The percentage of crimes cleared by arrest is obtained by 
dividing the number of offenses cleared by the number of actual 
offenses. This answer is then multiplied by 100. An example of 
this calculation is : 

a. Number of clearances in robbery 38 

b. Number of actual robberies 72 

Divide 38 by 72 = .528 

Multiply: .528 x 100 = 52.8 

Your percentage of clearance in robbery is 52.8%. 



22 



Percent of Change 

The method most commonly used to compare crime statistics 
for the current year with any prior year is the Percent of Change. 
This Percent is calculated by subtracting the prior year's data from 
the current year's data and dividing the resulting figure by the 
prior year's data. The answer is then multiplied by 100. An example 
of this calculation is : 

a. 1984 Murders 354 

b. 1983 Murders 367 



Subtract 367 from 354 = -13 

Divide -13 by 367 = -.035 

Multiply -.035 x 100 = -3.5 

Your Percent of Change in Murder is -3.5 percent 
when rounded. 



■ 

ri 



MARYLAND OFFENSE DATA 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 



Volume 

A total of 226,887 Crime Index Offenses were reported to 
law enforcement agencies in Maryland during the Calendar Year 1984. 
This represents a decrease of 2 percent when compared to the 1983 
data which was comprised of a total of 230,564 Crime Index Offenses. 

The Crime Index Offenses referred to here represent the 
most common problem to law enforcement. They are serious crimes by 
their nature, volume, or frequency of occurrence. Basically, they 
can be categorized as Violent Crime, which include Murder, Forcible 
Rape, Robbery, and Aggravated Assault, or as Property Crimes which 
include Breaking or Entering, Larceny, and Motor Vehicle Theft. 

An analysis of the total Index by month in 1984 shows that 
August had the highest frequency of occurrence and January had the 
lowest. In 1983, August had the highest frequency of occurrence and 
February had the lowest. 



Violent Crime 

Violent Crimes involve the element of personal confronta- 
tion between the perpetrator and the victim. Because of their wery 
nature Violent Crimes are considered more serious than Property 
Crimes. These offenses accounted for 15 percent of the total Crime 
Index for 1984. In 1983, Violent Crimes accounted for 15 percent 
of the total Crime Index. 

Analyzing the Violent Crimes by month reveals December had 
the greatest frequency of occurrence, while February had the lowest. 



Property Crime 

The number of Property Crimes reported during 1984 was 
more than 6 times greater than the number of Violent Crimes reported 
As a group, Property Crimes made up 85 percent of the total Crime 
Index. In 1983, Property Crimes made up 85 percent of the total 
Crime Index. 

A monthly analysis showed August had the highest frequency 
of occurrence and January had the lowest. In 1983, August had the 
highest frequency of occurrence and February had the lowes' 



it 



Rates 

Crime Rates relate the incidence of crime to the resident 
population. Many other factors which may contribute to the volume 



27 



and type of crime in a given jurisdiction are not incorporated here, 
but are shown in the section entitled "Crime Factors". 

In 1984, the Crime Rate for Maryland was 5,217 victims for 
eyery 100,000 population. This represents a 3 percent decrease in 
the Crime Rate when compared to 1983 with 5,362.0 victims per 100,000 
population. 

The 1984 Rate for the Violent Crime group was established 
at 792.8 victims per 100,000 inhabitants, a 2 percent decrease com- 
pared with 1983. The Property Crime group resulted in a Rate of 
4,424.2 per 100,000 inhabitants. This results in a 3 percent de- 
crease when compared to 1983. 



Clearances 

For Uniform Crime Reporting purposes, a crime is cleared 
when police have identified the offender, have evidence to charge 
him and actually take him into custody. Solutions of crimes are 
also recorded in exceptional instances where some element beyond 
police control precludes formal charges against the offender, such 
as the victim's refusal to prosecute or local prosecution is declin- 
ed because the subject is being prosecuted elsewhere for a crime 
committed in another jurisdiction. The arrest of one person can 
clear several crimes or several persons may be arrested in the pro- 
cess of solving one crime. 

Maryland law enforcement agencies cleared 22 percent of 
all Index Offenses reported to them in 1984. In 1983, law enforce- 
ment agencies cleared 22 percent of all Index Offenses. 

The Violent Crimes recorded a 44 percent clearance rate 
as compared to 1983 with a 43 percent clearance rate. The Property 
Crime group revealed an 18 percent clearance rate in 1984. During 
1983, police also cleared 18 percent of the Property Crimes. 

Considering individually the 1984 Violent Crime solution 
rate, it was determined that police were successful in solving 82 
percent of the Murders, 56 percent of the Rapes, 26 percent of the 
Robberies, and 54 percent of the Aggravated Assaults. The Property 
Crime solution rates were 17 percent for Breaking or Entering, 18 
percent for Larceny, and 16 percent for Motor Vehicle Theft. 

The relatively high clearance rate for Violent Crimes as 
compared to non-violent Property Crimes is in part attributable to 
the volume difference between the two. Property Crime volume is 
much greater than that of Violent Crime and police investigation 
of Violent Crime is usually more intense. The element of confron- 
tation between victim and perpetrator, as well as witness identi- 
fication of the perpetrator, also contributes to this higher rate 
of solution. 



28 



Juvenile Clearances 

In 1984, the clearance involvement of those persons under 
the age of 18 represented 23 percent of all cases cleared, the same 
as in 1983. 

The juvenile clearances for the Violent Crime category 
represented 15 percent of those cases solved, compared to 16 per- 
cent in 1983, with 5 percent clearances in Murder cases, 11 percent 
clearances in Rape cases, 19 percent clearances in Robbery cases, 
and 14 percent clearances in Aggravated Assault cases. 

The Property Crime clearances involving juveniles, repre- 
sented 26 percent of those cases solved, the same as in 1983, with 
26 percent in Breaking or Entering cases, 26 percent in Larceny 
cases, and 29 percent in Motor Vehicle Theft cases. 

Stolen Property Value 

The total value of Property Stolen during 1984 was $156, 
604,144 which resulted in a 6 percent increase over 1983. Recovered 
Property amounted to $60,175,174 which is 38 percent of the total 
stolen, resulting in a $96,428,970 property loss to victims in the 
State of Maryland during 1984. This property loss results in a 2 
percent decrease when compared to the property loss in 1983. 

5 YEAR TREND 
(Value in Mil 1 ions) 

5 YEAR 

AVERAGE 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 



Stolen 


155 


156 


148 


148 


164 


158 


Recovered 


47 


60 


49 


44 


44 


39 



29 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



1984 



31000 -- 



29000 - - 



27000 - - 



25000 - - 



2 3000-- 



21000 - - 



19000 - - 



17000-' 



CRIME INDEX OFFENSES 
5 ¥R. AUERAGE 




»«H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



30 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



4000- 



VIOLENT CRIME 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



1984 



3800-- 



UIOLENT CRIME 
5 VR. AVERAGE 



3400-- 



3200-- 



3000-- 




2400-- 



2200-- 



2000- 



^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 



Jan Feb Nap Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



31 



PROPERTY CRIME 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 

2 4900 



1984 



23000 - - 



22000-- 



21000 - - 



19000 - - 



18000 -- 



17000 



16000 - - 



15000 -- 



14000 



13000 



PROPERTY CRIME 
5 ¥R. AUERAGE 




"I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 



Jan FeJb Mam Apr May Jun Jul Ausr Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



32 



STOLEN PROPERTY 

ANALYSIS OF VALUE STOLEN AND RECOVERED 1984 



™„r- «r- n™nr-n™ VALUE 0F VALUE ^ PERCENT OF 

TYPE OF PROPERTY PROPERTY PROPERTY VALUE 
STOLEN RECOVERED RECOVERED 



Currency, Notes, Etc. $ 10,407,923 $ 716,844 7% 



Jewelry and Precious 


20,863,232 


1 ,583,920 


8% 


Metals 








Clothing and Furs 


4,574,590 


689,096 


15% 


Locally Stolen Motor 


67,490,278 


50,124,030 


74% 


Vehicles 








Office Equipment 


2,134,423 


249,898 


12% 


Televisions, Radios, 


14,519,823 


1,102,517 


8% 


Cameras, Etc. 








Firearms 


1,130,165 


158,106 


14% 


Household Goods 


3,449,173 


276,644 


8% 


Consumable Goods 


1 ,170,699 


195,590 


17% 


Livestock 


72,507 


17,587 


24% 


Mi seel laneous 


30,791 ,331 


5,060,942 


16% 


*T0TAL 


$156,604,144 


$60,175,174 


38% 



*Breakdown does not equal total due to rounding. 



33 



I 
I 



MURDER 



■ 

■ 
■ 
If 

■ 

1 

i 




MURDER 



Murder is defined as the willful (nonnegl igent) killing of 
one human being by another. As a general rule, any death due to a 
fight, argument, quarrel, assault, or commission of a crime is counted 
as a Murder. This offense is scored on the basis of police investiga- 
tion without regard to the findings of a court or jury or the decision 
of a prosecutor. Assaults to Murder and Attempted Murders are counted 
as Aggravated Assaults. Suicide, accidental deaths and justifiable 
homicides are also excluded. 



Volume 

In 1984, a total of 354 Murders were reported to law enforce- 
ment agencies in Maryland. This compares to 367 Murders in 1983 and 
results in a decrease of 4 percent. Murder comprises 1 percent of the 
total Violent Crime category and .1 percent of the total Crime Index. 



Rate 

In 1984, there were 8.1 victims of Murder for every 100,000 
residents in Maryland. During 1983, we reported a Murder Rate of 8.5 
victims per 100,000 population resulting in a 4 percent decrease. 



Nature 

In 1984, firearms predominated as the weapon most often used 
in the commission of Murder in Maryland, representing 58 percent of 
the total. This compares to 59 percent of the total during 1983. 46 
percent of the total Murders were committed with handguns, while 23 
percent were committed with a knife or cutting instrument, 7 percent 
with a shotgun, 6 percent with personal weapons, and 18 percent with 
other dangerous weapons. In 1983, 49 percent of the total Murders 
were committed with a handgun, 23 percent were committed with a knife 
or cutting instrument, 5 percent with a shotgun, 6 percent with per- 
sonal weapons and 17 percent with other dangerous weapons. 

The largest number of Murders (71) occurred in the 20-24 
age group, which comprised 20 percent of the total. In 1983, the 
largest number of Murders (74) occurred in the 25-29 age group, 
which comprised 20 percent of the total . 

Murders, as a result of Robberies, accounted for 12 percent 
of the total Murders; narcotic related Murders represented 13 percent. 
In 40 percent of the Murders, the circumstances were not determined 
at the time of the report. In 1983, Murders, as a result of robberies 
accounted for 13 percent of the total Murders, while narcotic related 
Murders represented 15 percent. In 47 percent of the Murders, the 
circumstances were not determined at the time of the report. 



36 



Clearances 

In 1984, 82 percent of all Murders were cleared with 5 percent 
of the total solved involving juvenile arrests. This compares to 1983 
with a 77 percent clearance rate and 6 percent of the total cleared in- 
volving juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

A total of 398 persons were arrested in Maryland for Murder 
during 1984. This represents a 15 percent increase when compared to 
1983, with a total of 347 persons arrested for Murder. 

Of this total, 90 percent were males and 10 percent female. 
75 percent of the total were black while 25 percent were white. 91 
percent were adults and 9 percent were juveniles. 



■ 

I 
■ 
■ 



37 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



60 



MURDER 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



1984 



55-- 



50-- 



MURDER 1984 
5 YR. AVERAGE 



45-- 



40-- 



,»\. 




20-- 



10-- 



t*"' 



■'s ■ ■''' 



i 



5-- 



H 1 1 1 1 1 1 \- 



Jan Feb Map Ax>x» May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Deo 



38 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY CIRCUMSTANCE 









1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


RAPE 






5 


6 


11 


5 


• 


ROBBERY 






43 


48 


53 


79 




BURGLARY 






1 


3 


4 


3 




ARSON 






2 


1 


5 


7 




LARCENY 









1 





1 




PROSTITUTION 










1 


1 




OTHER SEX 


OFFENSES 





1 


2 


2 




NARCOTIC 


)RUG 


LAWS 


45 


56 


54 


48 




LOVER'S TRIANGLE 


28 


22 


14 


17 




BRAWL DUE TO 
OF ALCOHOL 


THE INFLUENCE 


11 


9 


10 


21 




BRAWL DUE 
OF DRUGS 


TO 


THE INFLUENCE 


2 








2 




CHILD KILLED 


BY BABYSITTER 


2 


4 


2 







INSTITUTIONAL 


KILLINGS 


2 


3 


5 


2 




ARGUMENTS 






50 


27 


28 


51 




OTHER 






20 


15 


29 


16 




UNKNOWN 






143 


171 


213 


167 




TOTAL 






354 


367 


431 


422 


399 



*Data not available 



39 



MURDER 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF WEAPON 



DISTRIB. AVERAGE ] 984 ] 983 ] 982 ] 981 1980 



HANDGUN 

BLUNT OBJECT 

RIFLE 

SHOTGUN 

KNIFE 

PERSONAL 

ALL OTHERS 



46.1% 182 162 179 200 186 187 



4.i 



4.6% 



7. 



23.3% 



5.3% 



8.4% 



19 



21 



11 



92 81 



20 21 



33 36 



30 



20 



29 26 18 37 



22 



27 



38 37 



17 



16 20 19 25 



43 21 



85 89 97 108 



23 



TOTAL 



100. 



395 354 367 431 422 399 



Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding 



40 



I 



RAPE 



i 
I 
■ 
III 
I 
II 

i 

l 

1 
1 
II 
II 
II 




RAPE 



Rape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and 
against her will. In Uniform Crime Reporting, Rape is divided into 
two categories: (1) Rape by Force; (2) Attempt to commit Forcible 
Rape. Statutory Rape or the carnal knowledge of a female with no 
force used and where the victim is under the legal age of consent, 
as well as other sex offenses, are not included in this category. 



Volume 

During 1984, 1,644 Forcible Rapes were reported to Mary- 
land law enforcement agencies. This compares to 1,412 Rapes during 
1983 and results in a 16 percent increase. 

Rape accounted for 5 percent of the Violent Crimes and .1 
percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of August showed the highest frequency of Rapes, 
while March showed the lowest. In 1983, August had the highest fre- 
quency and February showed the lowest. 

5 YEAR TREND 

5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 

Force 1,242 1,289 1,129 1,188 1,297 1,307 

Attempt 357 355 283 408 366 374 

Total 1,599 1,644 1,412 1,596 1,663 1,681 



Rate 

A Crime Rate, in its proper perspective, is a victim risk 
rate since it equates the number of crimes per unit of population. 
In 1984, 75.6 out of every 100,000 females in Maryland were reported 
Rape victims, as compared to 1983, when 65.7 per 100,000 female popu- 
lation were reported victims. This results in a 14 percent increase 
in the rate of Forcible Rapes 



Mature 



During 1984, 78 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by 
Force while 22 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible 
Rape. In 1983, 80 percent of all Rapes were actual Rapes by Force 
while 20 percent were attempts or assaults to commit Forcible Rape. 



42 



Clearances 

In Calendar Year 1984, 56 percent of the total number of 
Rapes were cleared by arrest with 11 percent of the total solved 
involving juvenile arrests. In 1983, 59 percent of the total Rapes 
were cleared and 9 percent of the total cleared involved juveniles. 



Persons Arrested 

In 1984, there were 858 persons arrested for Rape in Maryland 
In comparison to 1983, with 820, there was a 5 percent increase in the 
number of arrests. 

80 percent of the total number were 18 years of age or older, 
while the remaining 20 percent were juveniles. 65 percent of the total 
were black and 34 percent white. 



■ 
■ 

■ 
I 
■ 
■ 
■ 
I 
1 
■ 



43 



RAPE 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 

200- 



1984 



190- - 



180- - 



170- - 



160-- 



150- - 



140- 



130-- 



120-- 



110 



100-- 



90 



RAPE 1984 

5 VR. AUERAGE 




■I 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 

MONTHS 



H , 

low Deo 



44 



ROBBERY 




ROBBERY 



Robbery is 'defined as the taking, 
anything of value from the care, custody, o 
persons by force or threat of force or viol 
the victim in fear. The element of persona 
present in this crime. Under the Uniform C 
all attempts to commit Robbery are included 
in four general categories -- firearms; kni 
other dangerous weapons; and hands, fists, 
rule, Robbery differs from Larceny in that 
element of force or threat of force. 



or attempting to take, 
r control of a person or 
ence and/or by putting 
1 confrontation is always 
rime Reporting Program, 

Robberies are reported 
fe or cutting instrument; 
feet, etc. As a general 
it is aggravated by the 



Robbery, as a crime of Violence, has a serious impact on 
the victim. In many instances serious injury results. Oftentime, 
with or without physical injury, the victim suffers mental anguish. 
Such damage is immeasurable. 



Volume 

During 1984, there were 13,113 actual Robbery offenses 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In 1983, there 
were 14,950 Robberies, which results in a decrease of 12 percent. 

Robbery accounted for 38 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 6 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly comparison reveals that December had the high- 
est frequency of Robberies, while June had the lowest frequency. 
In 1983, January had the highest frequency and June had the lowest 







5 YEAR TREND 










5 YEAR 














AVERAGE 


1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


Firearm 


6,532 


5,287 


6,276 


6,374 


7,998 


6,726 


Knife 


1 ,218 


1 ,064 


1 ,200 


1,246 


1,347 


1,234 


Strong Arm 


6,796 


5,760 


6,469 


6,690 


7,602 


7,461 


Other 


1,053 


1 ,002 


1,005 


1 ,067 


1,148 


1,041 


Total 


15,599 


13,113 


14,950 


15,377 


18,095 


16,462 



46 



Rate 

In 1984, Robbery Rate was 301.5 per 100,000 inhabitants 
This compares to a rate of 347.7 per 100,000 population in 1983, 
and results in a 13 percent decrease in the Robbery Rate. 



Nature 

During 1984, 66 percent of the Robberies were committed 
on the street, while only 1 percent were Bank Robberies. This 
compares to 1983, when 65 percent were committed on the street and 
.9 were Bank Robberies. 

Bank Robberies accounted for the highest average value 
loss, 642,414 in 1984. The average value loss for total Robberies 
was $4,655.17. 

Armed perpetrators were responsible for 56 percent of 
the Robbery offenses while 44 percent were muggings or strong-armed 
Robberies. This compares to 1983, when 57 percent involved Armed 
Robberies and 43 percent were strong-arm. 

An analysis of Armed Robbery by type of weapon indicates 
that the use of firearms was predominate, accounting for 72 percent 
of all Armed Robberies. Knives or cutting instruments made up 14 
percent while other dangerous weapons accounted for 14 percent of 
all Armed Robberies. In 1983, 74 percent of the total Armed Robber- 
ies were committed with firearms, 14 percent with knives or cutting 
instruments, and 12 percent with other dangerous weapons. 



Clearances 

In 1984, 26 percent of the total number of Robberies were 
cleared by arrest with 19 percent of the total solved involving a 
juvenile arrest. In 1983, 25 percent of the Robberies were cleared 
and 22 percent of those involved juveniles. 

15 percent of the Armed Robberies were cleared with 11 
percent of the total solved involving a juvenile arrest. 25 percent 
of the strong-arm Robberies recorded a clearance, while 30 percent 
of the total involved juveniles. 

Persons Arrested 

4,230 persons were arrested for Robbery in Maryland during 
1984. In comparison with 1983, and a total of 4,830 persons arrested, 
there was a 12 percent decrease in Robbery arrests. 



47 



67 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Robbery were adults, while the remaining 33 percent were juveniles. 

82 percent of the total persons arrested were black and 
18 percent were white. 95 percent were males and 5 percent females 



48 



ROBBERY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



1800 



1984 



1700- 



1600 



1500 



1400- - 



1200- - 



1100- - 



1000- - 



ROBBERY 1984 
5 VR. AVERAGE 




\y 



H 1 h 



■\ h 



Jan Feb Map App May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



49 



ROBBERY 

DISTRIBUTION BY NATURE 



NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL AVERAGE 

CLASSIFICATION .&E™ „ T QL 



nr Uf- )Crc nT yt DTD , VALUES x VALUES , 

OFFENSES DISTRIB. (DOLLARS) (DOLLARS; 



HIGHWAY 8,705 66.4% $2,235,766 $ 257 

COMMERCIAL HOUSE 1,141 8.7% 858,264 752 

SERVICE STATION 314 2.4% 131,884 420 

CONVENIENCE STORE 321 2.5% 127,010 396 

RESIDENCE 957 7.3% 1,126,134 1,177 

BANK 138 1.0% 642,414 4,655 

MISCELLANEOUS 1,537 11.7% 562,693 366 

TOTAL 13,113 *100.0% $5,684,165 $ 433 

♦Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



50 



AGGRAVATED 
ASSAULT 



II 
I 
1 
I 

I 
I 
I 
1 



I 
I 




AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



Aggravated Assault, as defined under the Maryland Uniform 
Crime Reporting Program, is an unlawful attack by one person upon 
another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily 
injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of 
a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. 
Attempts are included since it is not necessary that any injury 
result when a gun, knife, or other weapon is used which would result 
in serious personal injury if the crime were successfully completed. 
Also included in this category are all attempted Murders. 

Any assault in which hands, fists and feet are used and 
no serious injury to the victim results, is classified as a simple 
assault which falls into the Part II category, and is not included 
as a Crime Index Offense. 



Volume 

During 1984, a total of 19,369 Aggravated Assaults were 
reported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 18,007 Aggravated Assaults in 1983, resulting in an 8 percent 
increase. 

Aggravated Assault made up 56 percent of the Violent Crime 
category and 9 percent of the total Crime Index. 

The month of July had the highest frequency of Aggravated 
Assaults occurring, while February had the lowest. 







5 YEAR TREND 










5 YEAR 














AVERAGE 


1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


Firearm 


4,302 


4,586 


4,122 


4,511 


4,498 


3,791 


Knife 


4,295 


4,330 


4,304 


4,531 


4,204 


4,108 


Other 


6,057 


6,938 


5,919 


5,997 


5,651 


5,779 


Hands, etc. 


3,565 


3,515 


3,662 


3,806 


3,338 


3,504 


Total 


18,219 


19,369 


18,007 


18,845 


17,691 


17,182 



52 



Rate 

For each 100,000 persons in Maryland during 1984, there 
were 445.4 victims of Aggravated Assault. During 1983, there were 
418.8 Aggravated Assault victims per 100,000 population. A compari 
son of the two years results in a 6 percent increase. 



Nature 

In 1984, 24 percent of the Aggravated Assaults were com- 
mitted with the use of a firearm. A knife or cutting instrument 
was used in 22 percent of Assaults and 36 percent were committed 
with other dangerous weapons. The remaining 18 percent were com- 
mitted with personal weapons, such as hands, fists, feet, etc. 
These figures compare to 1983, when 23 percent of Aggravated 
Assaults were committed with a firearm, 24 percent with a knife 
or cutting instrument, 33 percent with other dangerous weapons, 
and 20 percent with personal weapons. 



Clearances 

54 percent of the total number of Aggravated Assaults 
were cleared by arrest with 14 percent of the total clearances in- 
volving juveniles. As compared to 1983, 55 percent of the total 
were cleared, and of those cleared, 14 percent involved juveniles 



Persons Arrested 

There were 6,461 arrests for Aggravated Assault in Mary- 
land during 1984. This results in a 1 percent increase when com- 
pared to 1983, with 6,407 persons arrested. 

78 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Aggravated Assault were adults, while 22 percent were juveniles. 
51 percent of the total were black and 48 percent white. 85 per- 
cent of the total were males, while 15 percent were females. 



53 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



1984 



2100- 



2000 



1900-- 



1800- - 



1700-- 



1600 



1500-- 



1400-- 



1300--" 



1200 



AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 
1984 



5 YR. AUERAGE 




1100 -J 1 1 1 1 L 



■\ 1 1 h 



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Deo 

MONTHS 



54 



II 

II 
II 
II 
I 
I 

I 
I 
I 

I 
I 
I 
I 



BREAKING OR 
ENTERING 




BREAKING OR ENTERING 



Breaking or Entering is defined as the unlawful entry of a 
structure to commit a felony or a theft. 

Data collection for this offense is further categorized as 
to forcible entries, unlawful entries where no force is used, and 
attempted forcible entries. 

As with other Property Crimes, the motive of personal gain 
coupled with the element of opportunity, results in the commission 
of this offense by both the amateur and the professional perpetrator. 
Only the absence of confrontation and use of force separate this crime 
from Robbery of the Violent Crime group. 

The volume of this offense presents the police with a seri- 
ous enforcement problem, made more difficult in many areas, by the 
lack of sufficient personnel to act as a deterrent and to provide 
successful solutions to these crimes. 



Volume 

In 1983, a total of 51,498 Breaking or Enterings were re- 
ported to Maryland law enforcement agencies. In comparison, there 
were 52,697 Breaking or Enterings in 1983 resulting in a 2 percent 
decrease. 

Breaking or Enterings made up 27 percent of the Property 
Crime category and 22 percent of the total Crime Index. 

A monthly analysis reveals that December had the highest 
frequency of occurrence while April had the lowest frequency. In 
1983, January showed the highest frequency and June showed the low- 
est. 

5 YEAR TREND 

5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 

Forcible 47,018 38,666 39,573 46,610 55,362 54,879 

No Force 7,725 7,039 6,928 7,057 8,246 9,357 

Attempt 6,583 5,793 6,196 6,880 7,154 6,894 

Total 61,327 51,498 52,697 60,547 70,762 71,130 



56 



Rate 

The Breaking or Entering Rate was 1,184.1 per 100,000 
inhabitants of Maryland during 1984. In 1983, there were 1,225.5 
Breaking or Entering victims per 100,000 population. In comparison 
this results in a 3.4 percent decrease in the Breaking or Entering 
Rate. 



'Jature 

In 1984, 75 percent of the Breaking or Enterings involved 
forcible entry, 14 percent were unlawful entries (without force), 
and 11 percent were recorded as attempted forcible entries. In com- 
parison, 75 percent were forcible entry, 13 percent were unlawful 
entries, and 12 percent were attempted forcible entries during 1983. 

66 percent of all Breaking or Enterings were committed in 
a residence, while 34 percent were committed in a nonresidence struc- 
ture, the same percentage as in 1983. 

The average dollar value loss for Breaking or Entering was 
$836. This compares to 1983 with $849 and results in a 2 percent 
decrease. 

Clearances 

In 1984, law enforcement agencies in Maryland were success- 
ful in clearing 17 percent of the total Breaking or Entering Offenses 
of which 26 percent involved juveniles. During 1983, police cleared 
17 percent of the total Breaking or Enterings, with 28 percent of 
that number involving juveniles. 

Persons Arrested 

In 1984, there were 10,605 persons arrested in Maryland 
for Breaking or Entering. When compared to 1983, with 10,961 arrests 
there is a 3 percent decrease in Breaking or Entering arrests. 

61 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 
Breaking or Entering were adults, while 39 percent were juveniles. 
51 percent of the total were white, and 48 percent were black. 94 
percent of the total were males, while the remaining 6 percent were 
females . 



57 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



1984 



7500 



7000 



6500-- 



6000-- 



5500-- 



4500-- 



4000-- 



3500-- 



•■ BREAKING OR ENTERING 
- 5 VR. AUERAGE 







*»,.»* 



H 1 1- 



■\ 1 h 



H \- 



Jan Feb Har Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



58 



BREAKING OR ENTERING 

DISTRIBUTION BY NATURE 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 


PERCENT 

OF 
DISTRIB. 


TOTAL 
VALUES , 
(DOLLARS) 


AVERAGE 
,VALUES , 
(DOLLARS) 


RESIDENCE TOTAL 


34,346 


66.7% 


$28,370,176 


$ 826 


Night 




11 ,056 


21.4% 


8,047,657 


728 


Day 




12,895 


25.0% 


10,899,694 


845 


Unknown 




10,395 


20.5% 


9,422,825 


906 


NONRESIDENCE 


TOTAL 


17,152 


33.3% 


14,659,798 


855 


Night 




6,238 


12.1% 


3,525,639 


565 


Day 




4,126 


8.0% 


3,036,451 


736 


Unknown 




6,788 


13.2% 


8,097,708 


1 ,193 


GRAND TOTAL 




51 ,498 


*100.0% 


$43,029,974 


$ 836 



*Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding 



59 



LARCENY 




LARCENY 



Larceny-Theft is defined as the unlawful taking, carrying, 
leading, or riding away of property from the possession or construc- 
tive possession of another. It includes such crimes as pocket-pick- 
ing, shoplifting, purse snatching, thefts from autos, thefts of auto 
parts and accessories, bicycle theft, etc. In the UCR Program, this 
category does not include embezzlement, fraud, forgery, and worthless 
checks. Motor Vehicle Theft, being a special problem, is a separate 
Crime Index Offense and is not reported in the Larceny- Theft category. 

Larceny Offenses cleared by police arrest are dramatically 
affected by the nature of the crime. As with other Property Crimes, 
opportunity and stealth, working in favor of the perpetrator and 
against police detection, reduce solutions for this offense. 

As with other Offenses against Property, Larceny is pri- 
marily a crime of opportunity. Types of Larcenies will differ in 
volume depending upon the opportunity for theft offered in a given 
area. 

The average dollar loss in this category was $343 as com- 
pared to 1983, with an average loss of $312, and results in a 10 
percent increase. A very small portion of goods stolen are recovered 
and returned to victims, due to a low clearance rate and lack of spe- 
cific identification characteristics on such property. In addition, 
many offenses in this category, particularly where the value of goods 
stolen in small, never come to police attention. 



Volume 

In 1984, there were 123,625 Offenses of Larceny-Theft re- 
ported as compared to 1983 with 127,443 Offenses and a 3 percent 
decrease. Larceny-Theft makes up 54 percent of the Crime Index 
total and 64 percent of the Property Crime total . 

August shows the highest frequency of Larceny Offenses in 
a monthly analysis, while January shows the lowest. In 1983, August 
showed the highest frequency while February showed the lowest. 



Rate 

The Larceny Crime Rate was 2,842.6 per 100,000 inhabitants 
of Maryland during 1983. In 1983, there were 2,963.8 Larcenies per 
100,000 population, resulting in a 4 percent decrease in the Larceny 
Rate. 



62 



Nature 

Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accessories recorded the high- 
est percentage with 22 percent of the total Larcenies reported in 
this category. Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with a .8 
percent of the total. In 1983, Larcenies of Auto Parts and Accesso- 
ries had the highest frequency with 24 percent of the total, while 
Pocket-Picking had the lowest frequency with .7 percent. 



Clearances 

In 1984, law enforcement agencies cleared 18 percent of 
the total Larceny-Theft Offenses, of which 26 percent of the total 
clearances involved juveniles. In 1983, police cleared 19 percent 
of the total Larceny Offenses with 26 percent of that number in- 
volving a juvenile arrest. 



Persons Arrested 

There were 24,925 persons arrested for Larceny in Maryland 
during 1984. In comparison to 1983, with 26,667 Larceny arrests, 
there was a 7 percent decrease in the number of persons arrested. 

33 percent of the total persons arrested for Larceny were 
under 18 years of age. Females comprised 25 percent of all arrests 
for Larceny, and had a greater involvement in this offense than in 
any of the other Crime Index Offenses. 

54 percent of all persons arrested for Larceny were black, 
45 percent were white, and 1 percent of other races. 



63 



LARCENY 

VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 

17008 



1984 



16000 - - 



15000 - - 



14000 -- 



13000 -- 



12000 



11000 -- 



7000 



LARCENV 

5 YR. AUERAGE 




H 1 V 



H 1 1 1 1 K 



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



M 



LARCENY 

5 YEAR TREND 



CLASSIFICATION 


5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 


1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


POCKET-PICKING 


1 ,073 


981 


843 


853 


1 ,296 


1,394 


PURSE SNATCHING 


2,569 


1 ,774 


2,331 


2,484 


3,151 


3,103 


SHOPLIFTING 


15,889 


14,955 


15,601 


15,997 


16,437 


16,456 


FROM AUTOS 


22,455 


21,820 


21,150 


22,728 


23,155 


23,424 


AUTO PARTS & 














ACCESSORIES 


34,860 


27,071 


30,854 


37,559 


39,037 


39,780 


BICYCLES 


9,397 


7,315 


7,533 


9,482 


11,038 


11,617 


FROM BUILDINGS 


26,073 


25,182 


24,399 


25,440 


28,402 


26,942 


COIN OPERATED 














MACHINES 


1,870 


1,704 


1,712 


1,987 


2,035 


1,911 


ALL OTHERS 


25,524 


22,823 


23,020 


26,373 


27,993 


27,462 


TOTAL 


139,721 


123,625 


127,443 


142,903 


152,544 


152,089 



65 



MOTOR VEHICLE 

THEFT 




MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



Motor Vehicle Theft is defined as the theft or attempted 
theft of a motor vehicle. This definition excludes taking a motor 
vehicle for temporary use, such as a family situation or unauthori- 
zed use by others having lawful access to the vehicle, such as chauf- 
feurs, etc. 

The crime of Motor Vehicle Theft has been labeled primarily 
as a crime of opportunity. The youthful offender finds the motor ve- 
hicle easily accessible for transportation for any purpose. The re- 
maining thefts are mainly for the purpose of resale, theft of parts, 
and for use in committing other crimes. 



Volume 

In 1984, there were 17,284 Motor Vehicle Thefts reported 
to law enforcement agencies in the state of Maryland. This is a 
10 percent increase when compared to the 15,688 Motor Vehicle Thefts 
reported in 1983. Motor Vehicle Theft makes up 9 percent of the 
Property Offense category and 8 percent of the Index Offenses. 

A monthly analysis for 1984 indicates that more motor 
vehicles were stolen during December than other than other months, 
and February showed the fewest being stolen. During 1983, August 
had the greatest frequency of Motor Vehicle Thefts and February 
showed the fewest number being stolen. 

5 YEAR TREND 

5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 

Auto 12,681 12,959 11,484 11,948 13,522 13,490 

Truck 1,980 2,007 1,922 2,060 1,940 1,973 

Other 2,751 2,318 2,282 2,711 3,024 3,422 

Total 17,412 17,284 15,688 16,719 18,486 18,885 

Rate 

The Motor Vehicle Theft Rate of 397.4 per 100,000 inhabi- 
tants is 9 percent higher than the rate of 364.8 per 100,000 inhabi- 
tants for 1983. 



68 



Nature 

Automobiles accounted for 75 percent of the total number 
of vehicles stolen. Trucks and buses made up 12 percent and other 
motor vehicles comprised 13 percent of the total. In comparison, 
automobiles accounted for 73 percent, trucks and buses 12 percent, 
and other motor vehicles 15 percent, in 1983. 

74 percent of the stolen value was recovered. This is 
a 7 percent increase when compared to the 69 percent of the stolen 
value recovered in 1983. 



5 YEAR TREND 
(Value in Millions) 

5 YEAR 

AVERAGE 1984 1983 1982 



1981 



1980 



Stolen 


54 


67 


58 


52 


48 


44 


Recovered 


38 


50 


40 


35 


33 


30 



Clearances 

In 1984, law enforcement agencies cleared 16 percent of the 
Motor Vehicle Thefts, a 7 percent increase over 1983. 

29 percent of the total clearances for Motor Vehicle Theft 
involved juveniles during 1984, compared to 24 percent in 1983. 

Persons Arrested 

3,503 persons were arrested in Maryland for Motor Vehicle 
Theft during 1984. This results in a 19 percent increase when com- 
pared to the 2,933 arrests in 1983. 

Of the total persons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft, 53 
percent were adults and 47 percent juveniles. 38 percent of the 
total were white, while 61 percent were black. 92 percent of the 
total persons arrested for Motor Vehicle Theft were males and 8 per- 
cent were females. 



69 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



1984 



1900- - 



1800- - 



1700-- 



1600- - 



1500- - 



1400-- 



1300-- 



1200- - 



1100- - 



1000 



MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT 
5 YR. AUERAGE 




■I V 



^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 



Jan Feb Mar App May Jun Jul Ausr Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



70 



ARSON 



Arson is defined as any willful or malicious burning or 
attempt to burn, with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, 
public building, motor vehicle or aircraft, personal property of 
another, etc. Only fires determined through investigation to have 
been willfully or maliciously set are classified as Arsons. Fires 
of suspicious or unknown origins are excluded. 

Arson offenses frequently occur in conjunction with other 
index crimes; e.g., Breaking or Entering. However, according to UCR 
procedures in such multiple offense situations, only one crime is 
selected on the basis of an established hierarchy. For example, if 
a Breaking or Entering and Arson occurred at the same time and place, 
only the Breaking or Entering would be reported if the crimes were 
subjected to the hierarchy rule of reporting index offenses. This 
assumes that Arson would be listed subordinate to Breaking or Enter- 
ing in the hierarchy. Arson has been excluded from this hierarchi- 
cal procedure, and regardless of its occurrence in conjunction with 
another crime against property or crime against a person, the Arson 
is reported. 



Volume 

In 1984, there were 2,696 Arsons reported. This is a 19 
percent decrease when compared to the 3,308 Arsons reported in 1983. 

A monthly analysis indicates March had the highest frequency 
of occurrence, while June had the lowest. In 1983, January showed the 
highest frequency, while February showed the lowest. 



Nature 

The most frequent target of Arsons in 1984 were structures, 
comprising 54 percent of the total reported incidents. Mobile (motor 
vehicles, trailers, airplanes, boats, etc.) and other property (crops, 
timber, fences, signs, etc.) accounted for the remaining offenses with 
21 and 25 percent respectively. 

Residences comprised 55 percent of the structures at which 
Arsons were directed. 11 percent of all targeted structural property 
was uninhabited or abandoned at the time the Arson occurred. 

The total monetary value of property damaged, due to re- 
ported Arsons during 1984, was over 24 million dollars with an aver- 
age loss per incident of $9,115. 



72 



Clearances 

21 percent of all reported Arsons were cleared by arrest 
or exceptional means in 1984, compared to 19 percent in 1983. 

45 percent of the total clearances for Arson involved 
juveniles during 1984, compared to 37 percent in 1983. 



Persons Arrested 

In 1984, there were 608 persons arrested in Maryland for 
Arson. This results in a 5 percent increase when compared to the 
581 arrests in 1983. 

41 percent of the total number of persons arrested for 

Arson were adults, while 59 percent were juveniles. 72 percent of 

the total were white and 27 percent were black. 88 percent of the 

total were males, while the remaining 12 percent were females. 



73 



ARSON 



VOLUME BY MONTH 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 

600- 



1984 



550-- 



500 



450-- 



400 



250-- 



150-- 



100 



ARSON 1984 
ARSON 1983 




H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



74 



ARSON 

DISTRIBUTION BY TYPE OF PROPERTY 



CLASSIFICATION 


NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 


PERCENT 

OF 
DISTRIB. 


AVERAGE 

VALUES 

(DOLLARS) 


PERCENT 
CLEARED 


TOTAL STRUCTURAL 


1,450 


53.7% 


$ 15,674 


27% 


Single Occupancy Resident 


ial 540 


20.0% 


9,490 


32% 


Other Residential 


257 


9.5% 


6,519 


23% 


Storage 


168 


6.2% 


67,715 


17% 


Industrial /Manufacturing 


14 


.5% 


14,211 


36% 


Other Commerical 


154 


5.7% 


23,010 


20% 


Community/Public 


244 


9.1% 


3,144 


36% 


All Other Structure 


73 


2.7% 


3,231 


14% 


TOTAL MOBILE 


569 


21.1% 


3,207 


12% 


Motor Vehicles 


498 


18.5% 


2,724 


11% 


Other Mobile Property 


71 


2.6% 


6,592 


20% 



OTHER 677 25.1% 181 13% 



TOTAL 2,696 *100.0% $ 9,115 21% 

♦Percent distribution does not add to 100% due to rounding. 



75 



i 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA 



The tables contained within this section were designed to 
facilitate quick reference of statistical crime information relative 
to the different reporting areas of the State of Maryland. 

The tables are broken down by Regions. Within each Region 
information is listed in County name sequence and is further detailed 
to show the activity experienced by individual police agencies. The 
general identifying descriptions which indicate the reporting areas 
are listed and defined as follows: 

Region Total - This line indicates the total activity of 

all the Counties within the indicated Region. 

County Total - This line indicates the total activity of 
all reporting Agencies within the indicated 
County. 

Sheriff - This line indicates the total activity 

reported by Sheriff's Offices. This is to 
include activity which may have occurred 
within the corporate limits of towns in 
that County. 

County Police 

Departments - This line indicates the total activity 
reported by County Police Departments. 
This is to include activity which may 
have occurred within the corporate limits 



State Police 



Municipal 

Police 

Departments 



of towns in that County. 

This line indicates the total activity 
reported by all State Police installations 
within the indicated reporting area. 
This is to include activity which may 
have occurred within the corporate limits 
of towns in that County. 



This line indicates the total activity 
reported by the individually specified 
police department to include only those 
crimes which were handled by that depart- 
ment. 



77 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

The five Regions used in the Maryland Uniform Crime Report- 
ing Program consist of the following: 

Region I - Eastern Shore 

Caroline County 
Cecil County 
Dorchester County 
Kent County 
Queen Anne's County 
Somerset County 
Talbot County 
Wicomico County 
Worcester County 

Region II - Southern Maryland 

Calvert County 
Charles County 
St. Mary's County 

Region III - Western Maryland 

Allegany County 
Carroll County 
Frederick County 
Garrett County 
Washington County 

Region IV - Washington Metropolitan Region 

Montgomery County 
Prince George's County 

Region V - Baltimore Metropolitan Region 

Baltimore City 
Anne Arundel County 
Baltimore County 
Harford County 
Howard County 

The tabulations in this section indicate the volume of Crime 
in Maryland. The measure used is a Crime Index consisting of seven 
offenses which are counted as they become known to the law enforcement 
agencies. Crime classifications used in the Index are: Murder and 
Nonnegligent Manslaughter, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated Assault, 
Breaking or Entering, Larceny-Theft, and Motor Vehicle Theft*. 

*Arson figures included are not computed in the total offenses or 
crime rates. 



78 



INDEX OFFENSE DATA (Cont'd) 

Each heading contained in this report is defined below 



Population 



Estimated population of the State, Regions, 
and Counties. This information, represen- 
tative of 1984, was provided by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation. 



Total Offenses: This is the sum total of the seven Index 
Offenses. 

Total Cleared: The sum total of the seven Index Offenses 
cleared. 

Percent Cleared: The percentage of Index Offenses cleared by 
arrest or exceptional means. The mathema- 
tical formula may be expressed as follows: 



Percent Cleared = 



Total Index Offenses Cleared 

Total Actual Index Offenses Reported 



100 



Crime Rate 



Example: 



This rate is the number of Index Offenses 
per 100,000 population. To compute a crime 
rate, you must divide the population by 
100,000 and divide the number of offenses 
by that answer. 

Population for Region I = 306,999 

Number of Index Offenses 

for Region I in 1984 = 11 ,832 



306,999 
100,000 



= 3.070 



11411- = 3,854.0 
3.070 

Crime Rate for Region I = 3,854.0 

Crime Rates for the individual agencies are not calculated in 
the following table because of overlapping jurisdiction in many cities 
of municipal, county and state law enforcement agencies. This table con- 
tains the offenses reported by the individual agencies with crime rates 
for the county and region totals. Arson offenses in this table are listed 
opposite the agency reporting the arson. In the Municipality Table, the 
Arsons are listed in the municipality where they occurred. 



79 



o -c t>- 



.© -j <r> 



<0 m tr\ 



(J <s> 



a or 
a o 



< c 

O _) 



—. _, «; 



U- « C 



» 7 

» o 

« O 



80 



P 



ir «t iri * 
rr\ oo ■ • 
tr\ .*• o^ » 



m qo ir< -a- 



O O I 



o o o 



•a c 
O _l 



O IV. c 



Co o 



O o- 

C UJ 

< I 



c \~ 
<I »- 

O VI 



81 



** <m m • 
m .»• • * 

(*> * 



— i o ir\ 



ou. 
« ai 
< X 



o o # o o 
• * 
o * 



o o I 



a o « 



o 


t- a. 


^ 


O -I 




h- O 


—1 




5 


t/"/ 


< 


_l z 



6t 



C C 



82 



& tr\ O* 

in in <m 



m r- -* 
nO cm . 

-■ w* IM 



o . * 



o in # 
a * 



O # * <\i 



<M <\J O 



<\j r- >c 



< c 

Z O _J 
<l I— o 



vC c • 

—. cm in 



-< c <r 



(M -C CC 

o <*■ t 
ir in cc 



n <jd «a- 
o t— r>! 



t s 



x •- u. 
o ? >- 
a 3 «i 



83 



m .*• O 



ro O ♦ O O | 



o © » o © 

• » 

o « 

o * 






■£ m tc 



<I o 
c k a 



3 ?■ 
a O 
o — 



7 ~> 

3 r 
o o 



84 



# o — 



.*■ «\i eg * o> m O • * M » » 
*C # m rr* ift * eg <nj c*> ♦ 



a -i 



— o o 



-( — o 



O O I 



O O I 



Lfl ■*■ O 






felt 



3 O >- 
O t-> (/> 



> ►- 



85 



m o m 



* o o 



<r c 

t- Of 

C -J 



t 8 



86 



-j — o 



6 it 



31 Uj 



87 



O li- 
CC UJ 
< I 



.0 o 

-( CO 



0- m 
IT M 



o - 



* — -<<# 



LL ■ •» Z5 



o < 



II 



£^ : 



>C •#• C» * 

— i (M • » 

-. - « • 



•o o o 
in ^- • 
- ^ o- 



m r- O 



# o — 



M IT\ — 

f»\ a- . 

IM N If 



(J </> 






rv. o * <m >o o ♦ 

t » r-< » * 

o * O » 

o * m « 



O C ♦ ■* cc 



0- oo a « ■* or >c 



vO<x>er#oiro»oo-cc 

o-f^ •#00. •#o-r- • 

or # — >r * f .o o 



-* «$• eo 



«!■ V ~ # in an fM 

• #ao » * ir\ cc • 
ir#r\mir»«v«coo 



cri co io 



e. o 
c ~ 



I •- 
c x 



O ►- 

3 iT 



89 



O 00 «t • M vO O- 

•t >t • • o en t 

"i m rsj * r- oo n- 



OP CO O * rr\ ~4 

•c <o t * c r- 
— _< 4. * m <o 



4 ro in * 



000 

(M <M + 



•O^O 



in ir o 



* o c 



m — ' O 



<MO0:#Of--O# 
f\J -t • « IM «M •« 



Et 



r- c o 
► » + 



Z a. 
=3 l_> 

O — 



> o: 

_J Uj 

< X 



90 



> UJ 

^ X 

a. t~ 



0> — ■ <SJ 



in o o- 
o r- t 



< < 



o> o -. 

.-* <M (\j 



» — O O 



<0 O IT 



ir\ * * o o t 



^ — o 



# -" «M 



<I CJ 
I— Q 

O -J 



CT •!• -C 



* r- O 



-O O ro 
ir\ I-- o 



<J3 io 



it 



91 



r»- in <o # o o I 



-. o * 
.. # 
4 • 



(M CD (M 



O — I * CSJ O O * 

* o * 

♦ o * 

: r : 



^ — * 



* o r> 



o o I 



.* r« O # O O i #00 



o-> *o * 



O P-l o 



—1 o ♦ o o 1 * o o 



o* ir r- 



ir. in o 



O O I 



coo 



Q. O « 



< O 

r 1- or 

z c. _J 



00 r- 
m IT 



_1 z 

< U. 



IT • 

IT J- 



O ^O <Ti 



|-» IT) 

CM CVJ 



o. c 

c — 



LLi » O 



92 



(J u. 

« I 



. J $ 2 

? : - ; 



o * _ 



& ~ * • 



If 



•- S i G 



UJ # 



93 



(M CM © 



< < 



_l 2 
O U. 






94 






CM ff> ^ 

r- -i • 
a a- m 



o o » 

o # 
o • 



r- o <?• • 
f- a- • • 



0* ci U1 

r- •* • 
in .*■ ci 



ci .*■ in * 

(\J CT • • 

-r rsj o * 



oo» in >o o * o c 
• # • * 

o * o ♦ 



- o o # 

• * 
o * 



— ~* o 



a. o « 






95 



O U"\ O ♦ O* & -t + 

— • • * m • * 

o # o ♦ 

IT » INI * 



»r pi O 



< « 



a. cc 



a i- a 



feit 

1- c 



96 






•C (T <0 



■c & o- * o 



— (N # o 



K<0* m l/> fT* * O f*^ 

IT • • * OJ . * 

O 1^ » —i * 



* <x -c 



m <o oc 



« in .o O 






♦ O <\j 



CM -J O • © 



sO •»• o 



O M O 



<\j rf, * O 



0*00 



#00 



O « O O I # C O 



o e o 



C t- a. 



moo 



# * «fr c\. 



«t * + 

ir\ * 



•j- a- 00 



C IT O 



O CT. O 



* s CJ> z 



oc ec o 
tr ct> z 



oc oc o 
a- o- z 



oc 00 o 
o- tr z 

1-1 — ■ < 



m .j- lu 



op o * oc or o 



O 1 0- Z 



a- tr z 



Z » t- 



Z UJ 
3 O 
O — 



z * z 



fc # z 



a * C 



Z # D 



a * tr 



97 



<M «0 *0 * O N 



vO •* IT\ * C O 



o c 



o- a o 



H Of. 
O -J 



«*■ o «*» 



at u. 

Of * 



3 2T 
O- O 



O -J 

t- c 

2- > 

£§£ 

< o »- 



f^ >T UJ 

00 CO <J> 

o- a z 

— — < 



98 



m »— to 



^ : 



#• M IT 



O O I 



< •- 

O "> 



O IT — • 



m _. » 



in — . 

xj in 



Cl ro o 



—I CT OD 



oc r- in 



O 


k or 





>o 


0* 


>o 


Z 


O -J 


* 






* 


< 


t- o 






•a- 




























a 












< 


-I z 






m 




5. 


< UJ 






»\j 






tit 




fkj 




«* 




«■ 










\- o 


* 


(M 


m 





rvj oo o 

— i r- • 

— * «!■ 



— ■ — i «r 



z5S 

C C h- 

z: t_> l/> 



CTl O CT\ 

oo cri i 



e> J- u. 
cc oc (J 

a o- z 



99 



» c ir\ «*• 



<c -j m 



tr oc >r * in (m o 



10 * o 



o o I 



c c i * o o 



o r^ c 



— -a- o- 



•C # O (\J C 



— < IT IT 



100 



tu « 



<\J o o 



-t — o 






O O I 



101 



» Ol n 



<\l c o 



m <sj oo # iri oo <o 

in r- • • r- .» • 

v\ * r- O* •»• 



<N irt * <M r>j rvj 



O u_ 
a: UJ 



♦ 0> ^0 



1NJ _ O 



« c 



< UJ 

c u. 



f- o * 






102 



00 CO -o 



O » .* rr\ 



O ni I 



— i m * 



r* ■* o # O O 



0*0 



o # o o 



00c 



* o — c 



\r r- o 



^ o c 



O — > CO 

—1 a • 

c\j m m 



<M C C 



ccr-<*>* _i 10 h- * 

f^m • ♦ .$■ <o • ♦ 

M N f « rr » 

+ » IT * 



C 






103 



t- * -o 



•C f> # V CM 



fSI CT O 



O UJ 

z c 



-C ec i^ «. --it. 
irv vO • * o •— 
<\j <\j -j- # fsj r* 






z o -J 



oc ir — i 



kit 



104 






_■ — o- 



— _ o 



cm •-* m 



CM -O O 



-o o • o o 






m co o 



o c 



00 f- i^ ■» — i 






cm r-- o # 
O ♦ 



_i 2" 

►- u. 
o u. 



•* o if- 






a. ai 
o a 



> t- 

*~ -j 

z <t 

15 rr 



> K 

•- -i 

2- <I 



105 



O O- CO 

>o CO • 

>0 00 o 



5 * «*. 

>c ■£> in 



00 (\j o 
rv a- . 

r> (M «* 



in >o it 



m fr, — « o o 



O CNJ O 



a »r o # o o 



C C I *«*"'<*> 



oc — u- » o c 



<\J (\J c 



coo* — ■ r- o 



o o o 



o c o 



cr •* •* 



m o 

IT p- 



o o o 



h- ■* m * 
+ O • * 

i« * <4- # 



— i — < 



106 



cvi <n o 



: 

* 

— < m o * o o 

• » 

o » 

o * 

•# * 

♦ • 

— ■ >o • » in in 

<M (M o ♦ 






m (M * a- a r- 

«t ■ * ♦ tt\ t 

«o # -- -< -o 



in M O * O -J 

o # 



*4" f\j O * N M O » 



O <\J I » o o 



o o » 
• » 

o * 



O O I #00 



I » 

* 
« 

OO I # ~- -* o 



t N N 



cc a. 






3 ^ 
c — 



•-t — 1 < 



2- C 

«/* _J 

c c 



107 






♦ coo 



c »- or « 

2 O _l * 



vD >r m 



O » — 



3 ^ 

c C 
c ~ 



cl # or 



108 



<M O- >£> 



•O \I\ O 

. * or iri • 

it, » m m oo 



» fvj o ir> 



o o * o 



.* •* • 



<\J «T •* 



0- — i 

~< ac 



o c o • -c or r- 



K- LL * C- 



o o c # o h- m 



o o o 



o- « 



or c 



<: or 






109 



<r — ■ ir 



> U. 

^ X 
1 t- 



0-0*00 
o # 



— cm o 



O O I 



« < 



• ~. <o ir « 



o * o » o <-> i 



ir ir> o 



•* lf> o » o o 



* o c 



— o o * 



^ O -J 



__.tr 



Z * _> 



* _J «-> 
» o z 

* c 



o l_ 



• u. 



no 



O O I # o © 



f- IT C 



000 



H O -J 



r- o # 000 



< u. 

felt 

1- c 



o c o 



111 



MUNICIPALITY CRIME RATES 



Crime Rates for the individual cities are calculated in 
the following table. The rates for many cities are based on com- 
bined figures of municipal, county and state Law Enforcement Agencies 
due to overlapping jurisdictions.* 



*Crime Rates for individual cities in Prince George's County are not 
calculated in this publication because of the overlapping jurisdic- 
tions. At this time Prince George's County Police department is unable 
to furnish the Maryland UCR Program with a breakdown of crime for the 
municipalities in their jurisdiction. Therefore, to have computed a 
crime rate for many cities in Prince George's County would have given 
a misleading picture of the crime problem in those areas. 



113 



K5 
•£ 



CAROLINE COUNTY 



% Change 



Federal sburg 


1983 




1984 




t Change 


Goldsboro 


1983 



78 
-23.5 



Greensboro 


1983 


2,846.2 


37 




1984 


1,307.7 


17 




% Change 


-54.0 


-54.1 



1, 700.0 
3,222.2 



Charlestown 



Chesapeake City 



1984 

% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 



+25.0 
4,571.4 
3,285.7 

-28.1 



7,651.5 
7,602.9 

-0.6 
6,266.7 
5,800.0 

-7.4 
3,700.0 
4,842.1 
+30.9 
4,000.0 
3.857.1 

-3.6 
3,000.0 
2,833.3 



(10) 
(8) 



114 



i! li 



h l 



(iorchisur rmiNiv 



Cambridge 


1983 


6.991.7 


839 


2 


6 


17 


87 


163 


549 


15 


(6) 




1984 


6.560.3 


761 








15 


70 


127 


533 


H 


(3) 




X Change 


-6.2 


-9.3 


















Hurlock 


1983 


3.176.5 


54 





1 





5 


16 


28 


4 


(1) 




1984 


2,388.9 


43 








3 


1 


6 


29 


4 


(0) 




1 Change 


-24.8 


-20.4 


















KENT COUNTY 


Chestertown 


1983 


5,294.1 


180 








3 


15 


23 


133 


6 


(0) 




1984 


4,531.3 


145 





1 


2 


10 


20 


105 


7 


(1) 




t Change 


-14.4 


-19.4 


















Rock Hall 


1983 


8,500.0 


136 





1 


1 


6 


53 


71 


4 


(0) 




1984 


7,875.0 


126 











2 


38 


83 


3 


(1) 




% Change 


-7.4 


-7.4 


















QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 


Centreville 


1983 


3.761.9 


79 








1 


2 


30 


45 


1 


(1) 




1984 


4.183.7 


82 








2 


16 


11 


52 


1 


(1) 




% Change 


+11. 2 


+3.8 


















SOMERSET COUNTY 


Crisfleld 


1983 


4.333.3 


130 





1 


2 





46 


78 


3 


(1) 




1984 


5,206.9 


151 








1 


1 


78 


67 


4 


(2) 




I Change 


+20.1 


+16.1 


















Princess Anne 


1983 


6,733.3 


101 





1 


2 


3 


12 


79 


4 


(0) 




1984 


5,800.0 


87 





2 


1 


5 


13 


64 


2 


(1) 




t Change 


-13.9 


-13.9 


















TALBOT COUNTY 


Easton 


1983 


5,666.7 


459 








9 


20 


82 


331 


17 


(1) 




1984 


6,721.5 


531 





1 


7 


25 


88 


391 


19 


(5) 




% Change 


+18.6 


+15.7 


















Oxford 


1983 


125.0 


1 














1 








(1) 




1984 


625.0 


5 











1 





3 


1 


(0) 




% Change 


+400.0 


+400.0 


















St. Michaels 


1983 


8,000.0 


104 


1 





1 


3 


24 


74 


1 


(2) 




1984 


6,846.2 


89 





2 





10 


11 


65 


1 


(2) 




I Change 


-14.4 


-14.4 


















Trappe 


1983 


125.0 


1 

















1 









1984 
































X Change 


-100.0 


-100.0 


















WICOMICO COUNTY 


Oelmar 


1983 


3,307.7 


43 





1 





1 


6 


34 


1 






1984 


4,076.9 


53 








2 


1 


11 


37 


2 






X Chanqe 


+34.2 


+23.3 


















Fruitland 


1983 


4,428.6 


124 








2 


9 


39 


70 


4 


(1) 




1984 


4,785.7 


134 





1 





11 


28 


91 


3 


(1) 




X Change 


+8.1 


+8.1 


















Hebron 


1983 


142.9 


, 

















1 





(1) 




1984 




























(0) 



115 



a I 



II 



9,125.0 
8,940.5 



9 27 

10 32 



..'_. r ' jr| 'J e 



(10) 
(12) 



1983 

1984 
% Change 



1 -■■■. J 



WORCESTER COUNTY 



Berlin 


1983 


2,363.6 


52 





1 


1 




12 


37 





(0) 




1984 


3,640.0 


91 








1 




20 


56 


7 


(2) 




% Change 


+54.0 


+75.0 


















Ocean City 


1983 


39,130.4 


1 ,800 


2 


11 


14 


6 


\ 459 


1,169 


81 


(8) 




1984 


34,309.1 


1,887 


1 


10 


15 


5 


423 


1,307 


80 


(14) 




% Change 


-12.3 


+4.8 


















Ocean Pines 


1983 


5,384.6 


70 













J 15 


52 









1984 


6,357.1 


89 





1 







27 


54 


2 






% Change 


+18.1 


+27.1 


















Pocomoke City 


1983 


6,243.2 


231 





1 





1 


43 


167 


9 


(2) 




1984 


4,714.3 


165 


1 


1 







29 


125 


3 


(0) 




% Change 


-24.5 


-28.6 


















Snow Hill 


1983 
1984 


1,000.0 
909.1 


22 
20 






3 
1 








5 

3 


11 


2 

1 





% Change 



CALVERT COUNTY 



Chesapeake Beach 



1984 
% Change 



928.6 

3,937.5 
+324.0 



1983 

1984 

% Change 



3,733.3 

3,473.7 

-7.0 



CHARLES COUNTY 



Indian Head 



1983 

1984 

% Change 



2,857.1 

3,277.8 

+14.7 



1983 
1984 
hange 



6,961.5 

+31.8 



ST. MARY'S COUNTY 



Leonardtown 



1984 
t Change 



ALLEGANY COUNTY 



1983 

1984 

% Change 



116 



I h.in 



3.456.9 

3.498.1 

+1.2 



1983 4,240.5 

1984 3,512.8 
It Change -17.2 

1983 



if 



y 






1983 1,333.3 

1984 333.3 



Westernport 



CARROLL COUNTY 



': Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 
1983 



1984 
I Change 



FREDERICK COUNTY 



1,357.1 

1.000.0 

-26.3 



2,846.2 
+12.1 

2,684.2 

1,052.6 

-60.8 

160.0 



-25.9 

1,555.6 
2,052.6 

+ 31.9 

1,851.9 

1,892.9 

+2.2 

500.0 

-100.0 

3,922.2 

5,752.7 

+46.7 

1,510.6 
1,562.5 



39 
+39.3 



for purposes of this report, we have shown the data for the entire city in 



117 



5-2 
.SS 



II 



GARRETT COUNTY 



Grantsvi'lle 



WASHINGTON COUNTY 



% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 



% Change 
1983 
1984 

% Change 
1983 



Change 



1984 
% Change 



% Change 



1984 
% Change 

1983 

1984 
% Change 

1983 



1,500.0 
1,500.0 
0.0 
3,187.5 
2,562.5 

-19.6 
8,981.9 
7,637.8 

-15.0 
1,235.3 

666.7 



■I-60.0 

1,133.3 

1,333.3 

+17.6 

727.3 

1,090.9 



750.0 
-6.3 



-75.0 
1 ,615.4 
1,230.8 

-23.8 
3,391.0 
4,450.0 

+31.2 

631.6 
736.8 
+16.7 

400.0 



2,488 
2,383 



3 
-25.0 



344 1,571 77 (5) 

492 1,432 90 (1) 



118 



Imiiji- 



1983 

1984 
t Change 



4.962.9 

4,790.6 

-3.5 



1983 3,421.1 

1984 2.611.1 
I Change -23.7 



428.6 
333.3 
-22.2 



'"}. 
1,737 
1,624 
-6.5 
65 
4/ 
-27.7 



& 



i,.. 

y 



1,120 63 






1984 

• l h.iiijr 



444.4 



+50.0 



6 
+50.0 



1983 

1984 

% Change 



2,842.1 

1,350.0 

-52.5 



•M0NIGOMFRY COUNTY 



1983 
1984 



I Change 



1.724.1 
,965.5 



Chevy Chase Village 



'hjnqe 



4,136.4 

4,381.0 

+4.9 



1983 5,795.5 

1984 6,109.2 
% Change +5.9 



10 33 
12 34 



,045 106 
,221 134 



I 18 1 



,S00. 



Change 



1983 10,666.7 

1984 9,111.1 
t Change -14.6 



Poolesville 



1 )H ', 



2,411.8 
2,205.9 



5,331.8 
4,966.4 



2,378 
2,220 



% Change 
1983 
1984 

I Change 
1983 
1984 

t Change 



,633 131 

,498 123 



727.3 
,545.5 
+112.5 



'Takoma Park 



5,048.8 

4,357.8 

-13.7 



828 

475 
-42.6 



*PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 



'Breakdown by Municipal! 
**A1 though Takoma Park li 

Montgomery County. 
'"Because the Pr. George' 
for the municipalities 



le from Montgomery County. 
George's Counties, for purposes of this report, we have shown the data for the enti 



119 



BALTIMORE CITY 



ARUNDEL COUNTY 



HARFORD COUNTY 



I Change 

1983 

1984 

% Change 

1983 
1984 

' Change 
1983 



.449.2 
,355.9 
-14.7 



70,080 
65,363 



2,891 
3,016 



879 

750 
-14.7 



500 9,176 

564 8,002 



6,291 14,690 34,752 4,470 (623) 

6,800 13,837 30,530 5,415 (577) 



,660 99 (59) 

,839 124 (71) 



56 (23) 

31 (25) 



Havre de Grace 



802.2 


437 


747.0 


477 


+19.7 


+9.2 



120 



MARYLAND 
ARREST DATA 



ARREST DATA 



The Maryland Uniform Crime Reporting Program requires the 
submission of monthly reports of data concerning persons arrested in 
the state. A record of total arrest activity for criminal acts in 
both Part I and Part II crime classes is received from 131 county, 
state and municipal law enforcement agencies, according to the age, 
sex and race of persons arrested. Traffic arrests, except Driving 
While Intoxicated, are not reported. A total of 204,837 arrests for 
Part I and Part II criminal offenses were reported during 1984. In 
comparison to 1983, there were 208,431 arrests which results in a 2 
percent decrease. Based on 1984 population estimates, there were 
4,709.9 arrests per 100,000 population in Maryland. The arrest rate 
for 1983 was 4,847.2, resulting in a 3 percent decrease in arrest 
rate. 

A person is counted on the monthly arrest report each time 
he is arrested. It should be noted that a person may be arrested 
several times during a given month for the same or different offenses 
This occurs frequently in a crime such as Disorderly Conduct. A ju- 
venile is counted as "arrested" when the circumstances are such that 
if he or she were an adult an arrest would be counted, or when police 
or other official action beyond a mere interview, warning or admonish 
ment is taken. 

Arrest figures do not indicate the number of individuals 
arrested or summonsed since, as has been pointed out, one person may 
be arrested several times during the month. However, arrest infor- 
mation is useful in measuring the extent of law enforcement activi- 
ties in a given geographic area, as well as providing an index for 
measuring the involvement in criminal acts, by the age, sex and race 
of perpetrators. 

25 percent of all reported arrests during 1984 were for 
Crime Index Offenses (Murder, Forcible Rape, Robbery, Aggravated 
Assault, Breaking or Entering, Larceny-Theft, and Motor Vehicle 
Theft). Analysis of Crime Index Arrest Data indicates that Larceny 
comprised the highest percentage of all arrests for Crime Index 
crimes, with 49 percent of the total. The same trend for Larceny 
occurred in 1983 with 50 percent of the total. The Drug Abuse, 
Driving Under the Influence, Disorderly Conduct, and All Other 
Offense categories continue to record the highest percentage of 
arrests for Part II Offenses. These offenses accounted for 69 
percent of the total Part II Offenses in 1984. 



Violent Crime 

Arrests for crimes of violence (Murder, Forcible Rape, 
Robbery and Aggravated Assault) on a statewide basis amounted to 



122 



23 percent of arrests for Crime Index Offenses and 6 percent of the 
total arrests in 1984, the same as in 1983. A further evaluation 
indicates that arrests for Robbery and Aggravated Assault were the 
most frequent, representing 35 and 54 percent respectively, of the 
total arrests for Violent Crimes. 



Property Crime 

Property Crime arrests (Breaking or Entering, Larceny- 
Theft and Motor Vehicle Theft) comprised 77 percent of all arrests 
for Crime Index Offenses and 19 percent of the total arrests in 
1984, as compared to 77 percent of all arrests for Crime Index 
Offenses and 19 percent of the total arrests in 1983. 

The highest percentage of Property Crime arrests, 64 per- 
cent, occurred in the Larceny category, the same as in 1983, with 
66 percent of the total . 



Drug Abuse Violation Arrests 

Information pertaining to Drug Abuse Violation arrests 
is collected according to specific drug categories and whether the 
arrest was for Sale or Manufacture or Possession of the specific 
drug. During 1984, a total of 17,916 arrests for Drug Abuse Law 
Violations was reported, as compared to 1983 with 17,299 arrests, 
resulting in a 4 percent increase. 

Evaluation of data reported discloses that 34 percent of 
all persons arrested for Drug Abuse Violations were under 21 years 
of age. 35 percent of all persons arrested for Drug Abuse Viola- 
tions were under 21 in 1983. 15 percent of the Drug Abuse Viola- 
tion arrests were for persons under the age of 18 as compared to 
18 percent in 1983. 

Analysis of individual categories showed that the highest 
percentage of arrests, 63 percent, involved marijuana, as compared 
to 70 percent in 1983. 71 percent of the total Drug Abuse Arrests 
were for Possession while 29 percent were for Sale or Manufacture. 
In 1983, 75 percent were for Possession while 25 percent were for 
Sale or Manufacture. Possession of marijuana represented 49 per- 
cent of the total Drug Abuse arrests, as compared to 1983, with 
56 percent of the total . 



123 



5 YEAR TREND 



5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 



1984 



1983 



1982 



1981 



1980 



Opium 2,951 4,416 3,186 3,163 2,316 1,674 

Marijuana 11,541 11,227 12,030 12,047 11,578 10,821 

Synthetic 662 741 711 756 566 536 

Other 1,357 1,532 1,372 1,452 1,296 1,131 

Total 16,510 17,916 17,299 17,418 15,756 14,162 



Gambling Arrests 

A total of 627 Gambling arrests were reported during 1984. 
In 1983, 618 persons were arrested for Gambling violations, resulting 
in a 1 percent increase. 

Arrests for Gambling offenses amounted to .3 percent of all 
reported Part I and Part II arrests, the same as in 1983. Persons 
under the age of 18 made up 10 percent of all Gambling arrests com- 
pared to 8 percent in 1983. 







5 YEAR 


TREND 










5 YEAR 














AVERAGE 


1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


Bookmaking 


46 


61 


52 


37 


27 


54 


Numbers 


150 


76 


184 


170 


141 


177 


Other 


436 


490 


382 


367 


452 


489 


Total 


632 


627 


618 


574 


620 


720 



Total Arrest Comparison 



Juvenile 43,917 38,005 38,468 43,472 48,298 51,343 

Adult 158,720 166,832 169,963 170,814 152,081 133,909 

Total 202,637 204,837 208,431 214,286 200,379 185,252 



124 



ARRESTS 



JUVENILE 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



6500-- 



6000-- 



5000-- 



4000 - - 



3500 



3000 



2500-- 



2000 



• 1984 
— 5 VR. AVERAGE 




H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 V 



Jan Feb Max* Apr May Jun Jul Ausr Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



125 



ARRESTS 

ADULT 



NUMBER 

OF 

OFFENSES 



18000 



17000 - - 



16000 - - 



15000 - - 



14000 - - 



13000 -- 



12000 -- 



11000 



10000 -- 



9000 



■ 1984 
— 5 VR. AVERAGE 




^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 h 



Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

MONTHS 



126 



ARREST RATE 



FIVE YEAR TREND 



5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 



1984 



1983 



1982 



1981 



1980 



MURDER 



9.7 



9.2 



10.1 



11.6 



9.3 



RAPE 



20.6 



19.7 



19.1 



22.0 21.6 



20.7 



97.3 112.3 117.0 126.8 118.4 

148.6 149.0 152.8 131.6 138.7 

243.8 254.9 287.0 336.1 333.6 

LARCENY 658.4 573.1 620.2 666.7 716.5 715.6 

80.5 68.2 69.0 73.6 84.8 



ROBBERY 


114.4 


AGGRAVATED 




ASSAULT 


144.1 


BREAKING OR 




ENTERING 


291.1 



MOTOR VEHICLE 

THEFT 75.2 



TOTALS INDEX K313.5 1,172.2 1,231.7 1,324.4 1,417.6 1,421.1 

Arrest rates are a measure of law enforcement activity in response to 
crime. The above table represents the Crime Index arrest rates per 
100,000 inhabitants in Maryland. 



127 



R E 



I A I ! 



Murder » Nonnegl igent 
Manslaughter 



Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Felonious Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny- Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Other Assaults 

Arson 

Forgery 4 Counterfeiting 

Fraud 



4.009 


221 


760 


3,455 


11 


5,472 


989 


3,126 


3.286 


16 


9,984 


621 


5,449 


5.116 


20 


8,753 


6,172 


11,225 


13,500 


23 


3,219 


284 


1,342 


2,155 


3 


6,263 


3,082 


10,661 


8,572 


49 


535 


73 


438 


165 


1 


726 


402 


623 


499 





2,514 


1,850 


2,346 


1,994 


2 


263 


118 


141 


238 





500 


42 


222 


319 






Weapons; Carrying, Possessing, etc. 



Prostitution & Commercialized Vice 



Drug Abuse Violations 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Disorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 

Suspicion 

Curfew 
Law Vi 

Run-Aways 

GRAND TOTAL 



3,492 

546 



1,632 


186 


1,089 


719 


15,004 


2,912 


8,463 


9,388 


567 


60 


255 


371 


890 


102 


571 


418 


30,191 


4,115 


27,906 


6,190 


3,404 


523 


2,685 


1,233 


5,600 


1,031 


3,691 


2,913 


246 


37 


166 


114 


41,055 


6,248 


27,377 


19,697 


60 


13 


52 


21 


411 


127 


301 


237 


1,201 


1,536 


2,140 


576 


72,606 


32,231 


117,343 


86,400 



129 



9 S 10-12 



ARRESTS 



Manslaughter by Negligence 

Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Felonious Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny- Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Other Assaults 

Arson 

Forgery I Counterfeiting 

Fraud 

Embezzlement 

Stolen Property; Buying, 
Receiving, Possessing 



16 


107 


313 


294 


278 


371 


1,379 


356 


279 


55 


141 


330 


228 


319 


350 


1,423 


244 


281 


92 


398 


1,034 


778 


892 


895 


4,089 


798 


690 


57 


1,019 


2,246 


1,455 


1,567 


1 ,584 


8,128 


1,364 


1,226 


4 


30 


290 


404 


459 


445 


1,632 


312 


247 


95 


270 


704 


466 


535 


707 


2,777 


736 


866 



54 


42 


201 


385 


435 


2,647 


212 


255 


799 



585 509 



J57 


23 


20 


16 


65 


39 


59 


53 


57 


69 


93 


109 



234 225 



Sex Offenses (Except Forcible Rape, 
Prostitution S Commercialized Vice) 



Drug Abuse violations 



763 1,034 
21 28 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Disorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 

Suspicion 



,123 1,301 



,286 5,47 



,555 2,191 2,4 



2,407 2.280 2, 



394 2.737 



GRAN I rOTAI 



3.340 9,045 7,200 8,264 9,099 



,378 9,476 9,926 9, 



9,231 9,351 



130 



A K R E S 



AS I 

25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 



AG, 



Manslaughter by Nen! igenc e 

Forcible Rape 

Robbery 

Felonious Assault 

Breaking or Entering 

Larceny- Theft 

Motor Vehicle Theft 

Other Assaults 

Arson 

Forgery & Counterfeiting 

Fraud 



.164 


708 


485 


,289 


774 


396 


.575 


2.500 


1,320 



3,909 2,491 



2 


2,851 


4,230 


56 


5,038 


6,461 


13 


6,516 


10.605 


38 


16,797 


24,925 


2 


1,871 


3,503 


07 


16,568 


19,345 



Embezzlement 



Stolen Property; Buying, 
Receiving, Possessing 



Weapons; Carrying, 
Possessing, etc. 



Drug Abuse Violations 



,023 
13 



3,731 
67 



2,723 


5,370 


2,948 


3,747 


1,145 


1,190 


1,379 


1,818 


5,230 


17,916 


563 


627 



Driving under the Influence 

Liquor Laws 

Disorderly Conduct 

Vagrancy 

All Other Offenses (Except Traffic) 

Suspicion 



1,676 7,064 



5,033 


3,753 


2,734 


1,944 


338 


225 


159 


116 


735 


515 


362 


257 



9,362 

10 



6,417 4,134 

5 2 



278 
41,825 



283 
17,303 



538 
2,737 



8,843 36,345 24,257 15,339 9,721 6,151 4,078 



166,832 204,837 



131 



TABLES FOR ARRESTS BY REGION, COUNTY, AND 

AGENCY ARE CONTAINED IN THE SUPPLEMENT REPORT 

"MARYLAND ARREST DATA" 



132 



LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

EMPLOYEE DATA 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED 



Two law enforcement officers were killed in Maryland during 
1984 while in the line of duty. The following summaries are based on 
information provided by the respective agencies and by the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation who conducts in-depth investigations into these 
tragic incidents in which law enforcement officers have made the supreme 
sacrifice in the performance of their duties. 



JUNE 18, 1984 

A Hyattsville police officer died as a result of injuries 
suffered when he lost control of his motorcycle while assisting a 
fellow officer in a high speed chase. The officer, a white male, 27 
years of age, and a five year veteran, died of head injuries received. 
A 17-year-old boy was later caught and charged with five traffic viola- 
tions. 



DECEMBER 3, 1984 

An investigation of wholesale narcotics dealers led to the 
death of a 36-year-old Baltimore Police Department detective at approxi- 
mately 5:45 P.M. on December 3. The detective, working the undercover 
operation with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officers, was in 
a third floor apartment reportedly negotiating a drug transaction when, 
according to plan, other detectives and DEA agents entered the building 
to execute a search and seizure warrant. As the other officers entered, 
they heard gunshots from the upstairs apartment and subsequently ex- 
changed gunfire with a suspect. Following a short period of negotiation, 
a 26-year-old male surrendered and was arrested. The fatally wounded 
detective, a 13-year veteran, was found in the upstairs apartment. He 
had been shot in the upper body with a .357-magnum handgun. 



135 



LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ASSAULTED 



The following information is based on a detailed monthly 
collection of data in the Uniform Crime Reporting System regarding 
the problem of assaults on local, county and state law enforcement 
officers. The large number of reported assaults on sworn officers 
is in part due to a prevalent attitude of disrespect for law enforce- 
ment in certain elements of our society. 

A total of 3,777 law enforcement officers in Maryland were 
victims of assault in the line of duty during 1984, as compared to 
3,730 assaults during 1983, resulting in a 1 percent increase. 

The rate of assaults on law enforcement officers for the 
state was 33 assaults for every 100 sworn officers, as compared to 
33 assaults per 100 sworn officers in 1983. 

Physical force was used in 87 percent of all assaults on 
police officers. 

The greatest number of assaults (1,225) or 32 percent 
occurred while officers were responding to disturbance calls (family 
disputes, man with a gun, etc.). 33 percent of assaults on police 
officers occurred between 10:00 P.M. and 2:00 A.M. 

A total of 3,682 assaults on law enforcement officers 
were cleared during 1984, amounting to a 97 percent clearance rate. 









5 YEAR TREND 














INJURY VS. 


NON-INJURY 










5 YEAR 
AVERAGE 


1984 


1983 


1982 


1981 


1980 


No Personal 
Injury 


2,991 


3,063 


3,087 


3,212 


2,855 


2,736 


Personal 
Injury 




679 


714 


643 


664 


658 


716 


Total 




3,670 


3,777 


3,730 


3,876 


3,513 


3,452 








WEAPONS 








Firearm 




145 


161 


138 


144 


150 


132 


Knife 




86 


55 


88 


101 


84 


102 


Other 




264 


265 


238 


270 


248 


300 


Physical 


Force 


3,174 


3,296 


3,266 


3,361 


3,031 


2,918 


Total 




3,670 


3,777 


3,730 


3,876 


3,513 


3,452 



137 



< 

CO 

< 

LU 
U 

O 



C£CD 
UIC£ 



(— QQ 


^9 


&s 


Zi— i 


LD 


«* 


ua 






Oh- 


co 


lt> 


q: co 


CO 


c\j 


LUi— i 






O-O 









oa 


















CD 








CO 










z 








CO 






CO 






CO 






UJ 






CO 




h- 


q: 






q: 






Ul 




on 


LU 




CO 


CD 






q: 




o 


^ 




ZI 


o 




Q 


CD 




Q- 


o 


u. 


o 


Ctl 




UJ 


o 




00 


CO 


o 


to 


a. 




CD 


cc 




Z 


1 — 1 




Q£ 




c£ 


Z 


Ql 




<C 


CtL 


^ 


UJ 


-zi 


Ul 


< 






o; 


Q_ 


o 


D_ 




Q 


C£ 


^ 




h- 










a: 


Ul 


1— 1 






U. 


i— 


CO 


CO 


o 


Q 






»> 


O 


<c 


=3 


UJ 


CO 




CO 




CD 




CD 


O 






>- 


Ul 


co 


Z 


>- 


■— i 


1 — 1 


C£ 


Q 


_J 


1 — 1 


D. 


i — i 


Q 


I— 


CJ> 


< 




_J 


cc 


o 


_l 


O 


CO 




_l 


_J 


=C 


Ul 


h- 


Q 


1— 


UJ 


D. 


CD 


i— c 


h- 


CO 


co 




CO 


> 


CO 


C£ 


> 


■Z. 


CO 




«c 


:=> 


^ 


ZD 


rs 


•— 1 


Ul 


o 



138 



(\j r>. — r^ >c 



o • o o o 



O O >T 



o- * oo * .*■ 



p-i * o * <0 



I 1/1 ct 



a. z 
UJ o 
I a. 



© o o 



0*000 



OO O ^ 1^ * o 



OOOO 



_J f> 



♦ 5 • 

* s » 



* 3 



Z UJ « 

uj a. »- 

O O </) 



_i o — 



139 



00 

a: > 
LU a 

a. 3 

-5 

X Z 



eg c r\i 









<r 


















































* 




u 


U 


« 


m 


(NJ 


♦ 


"* 


* 


"* 


* 


r« 


* 


<VJ 


" 


•*■ 


* 


^ 


* 


it 


»M 


<M 


* 


<r 


» 




* 




00 


a 




























♦ 




* 








# 




» 




* 




a 


o 

Ul 


* 






* 




♦ 




♦ 




* 








* 




« 








* 




♦ 




• 








* 






» 




* 




» 




* 








* 




* 








* 




» 




# 


z 




t/i 


* 






* 




# 




* 




* 








* 




♦ 








» 




» 


a 


* 


(-1 
a. 

<3 


a 


D 

a 


* 


o 


o 


* 


o 


* 


o 


♦ 


fi 


* 


o 


<M 


-* 


* 


o 


* 


o 


O 


O 


* 


(\J 


* 


,_ 


* 


I 


* 






* 




* 




♦ 




* 








# 




* 








« 




* 










< 














































3 


• 


I 


a 




* 














* 












♦ 




* 








* 






« 








x 














































in 




LL 












* 








* 




• 


























«/) 




a 


















































<3 


* 


OJ 


LU 




* 






* 




♦ 




* 




* 








* 




* 








• 




♦ 


i/> 




Q. 


LL 




♦ 


c 


o 


♦ 


o 




o 




o 


♦ 


o 


o 


O 


* 


o 




o 


o 


o 




(M 




a 


• 


> 


^ 




H 






„ 




# 




* 




♦ 








# 




# 








* 




* 


U 






* 


















































* 








♦ 










* 




♦ 




» 












♦ 














ll 






















































LL 










* 






» 




ft 




» 
















* 








* 






a 


# 




X 




# 






» 




# 




# 




* 








* 




* 








* 




„ 


J 






LU 
















































» 


• 




a 




• 






* 




* 




* 




• 








* 




• 








•» 




* 


u 


* 




LL 




* 






» 




♦ 




* 




♦ 








• 




* 








* 




* 



o o 

— LU 
LL. h- 
LL ~J 
O 3 



S B 



140 



M M • 



«J o 
lu a 



3 

LU a 

I Z 



* O -« «N o 



o -o —• o 



EX Z 

LU O 

I a. 



o o <nj o o 



o o o -* 



O -* C r\j 



© «*■ O O 



-1 13 -I 



141 



<M C r\J 





* 




U 


UJ 

U 


* 


LO 


ft 


- 


♦ 


CI 


- 


r- 


* 


CD 


ft 


IT* 

rsj 


f^ 


# 


-*• 


♦ 


- 


f\ 


* 




* 




00 

>- 


c 


* 




* 




* 








* 




* 






« 




* 






♦ 




* 




X 
Q. 


LL 


* 




* 




* 








* 




* 






♦ 




* 






♦ 




* 








* 




* 




ft 








* 




♦ 






« 




* 






* 




* 


z 




m 


* 




♦ 




* 








* 




ft 






» 




* 






* 


o 


* 


a 

0. 


a. 


a 


• 


o> 


* 


n-> 


• 


~* 


c 


<\l 


* 


~o 


* 


«o 


o 


* 


o 


* 


o 


o 


« 




* 


<j 


X 


a. 


♦ 




♦ 




* 


















♦ 




* 






ft 


-J 
















































D 


* 


x 


o 




* 




» 












« 




* 






• 




* 






* 


<r 








■x 








































c/> 




LL 






♦ 








* 








• 










* 




♦ 






♦ 


i/i 




o 












































« 


* 








# 




• 




» 








ft 




♦ 






• 




* 






* 


i/> 


* 


ef 


LL 




* 


o 


ft 


O 


« 


o 


o 


O 


* 


c 


* 


o 


o 


» 


o 


# 


o 


o 


* 


a. 




> 












































LU 


* 




Z 




* 




♦ 












» 




# 






» 




* 






♦ 


1-1 






* 












































• 








* 
















# 




ft 






♦ 




• 






• 


LL 
















































Ik 










* 




* 




# 








* 




• 






* 










• 


O 


* 




I 




• 




# 




ft 








ft 




• 






* 




• 






# 


*2 






a 











































LL K- 



*- • 
z 

3 ft 
O 



3 ft 

5 
u • 



ct ft 



142 



(s. — r- • <o 



o O f^ o — 





» 




■a 

U 


UJ 

U 


« 


c 


♦ 


fVJ 


- 


- 


* 


00 


♦ 


- 


C\l 


f\J 


1- 


- 


ir 


* 


•o 


* 


- 


<c 


it 


* 




♦ 




1/1 


a. 

o 


* 




* 








* 




♦ 














* 




* 








* 




» 




X 


"■ 


* 




* 








* 




* 














♦ 




* 








• 




« 






* 




» 








* 




* 














* 




• 








* 




• 


z 




i/i 


* 




* 








* 




* 














* 




» 








« 


o 


* 


o 

a 


□L 


u 


* 


o 


# 


o 


o 


o 


# 


"• 


* 


o 


o 


© 


o 


o 


■"* 


* 


•*■ 


* 


o 


~* 


«»■ 


* 




* 


■a 


X a. 














* 




* 














* 




♦ 










_J 








< 














































z> 


* 


Z 


CJ 








* 








* 




* 














ft 




ft 








« 


< 

00 


• 


u. 
O 




i 


* 




* 








* 




* 














* 




* 










<i 


* 








# 




* 








* 




* 














ft 




♦ 








* 


1/1 


« 


a 


LL 




♦ 


o 


« 


© 


o 


o 


« 


o 


* 


o 


o 


o 


o 


© 


o 


* 


— 


« 


o 


o 


— 


# 


QC 




> 


















































UJ 


* 




Z 








• 








# 


















* 




* 










o 
























































• 








♦ 




* 












* 














» 












* 


LL 






















































LL 


» 








# 




# 








* 




# 














• 












» 


o 


# 




I 




# 




* 








« 




* 














# 




# 








* 


* 






a 
















































z 


* 




a. 




* 




* 








ft 




* 














• 




* 








* 


(J 






LL 




* 












* 




* 














* 




* 








» 


CL 























































< V, 

y- <r 

O 






a. »- 

0L < 

■o t- 



143 



Or"* 









<3 


















































* 




1-) 


u 


* 


-* 


-0 


* 


— 


* 


— 


* 


IT. 


* 


-J- 


O 


'"' 


* 


a- 


* 


>* 


* 


M 


ft 
IT 


c 


♦ 




* 




Ol 

>- 




* 






* 




ft 




# 




* 








* 


in 


» 


"* 


* 




""' 




• 




* 




X 


u. 


* 






* 




* 




* 




* 








* 




* 




* 








# 




* 








* 






* 




* 




* 




* 








♦ 




* 




* 








• 




# 


■z 




1/0 


» 






» 




* 




* 




* 








♦ 




* 




♦ 








* 


o 


ft 


c 


a; 


l-J 


* 





<NJ 


* 


O 


* 


O 


* 


IM 


* 


t\J 


O 


O 


» 




* 


INI 


* 


(M 


>0 


fSJ 


♦ 


y- 


* 


«I 


X 


a. 








# 








# 




* 








* 




* 




* 










_j 








«3 














































a 


ft 


X 


u 










* 




* 




# 




» 








# 




» 




* 








* 


<s 








s 














































<s> 


* 


LL 












* 




* 




* 




* 








* 








* 








* 


1/) 




O 


















































■a 


* 




UJ 




* 






* 




* 




* 




* 








* 




* 




* 








* 


IS) 


* 


a 


u_ 






e 


O 




O 




C 




O 


» 


C 


O 


O 


# 


o- 








C 




c 


* 


a. 


* 


£ 


z 




# 






* 




* 




* 




# 








„ 




# 




» 








# 


u 






X- 


















































* 








* 






♦ 




* 




* 




» 








» 




* 




• 








* 


LL 






















































u. 


# 








* 






* 




« 




* 




♦ 








» 




# 




* 








» 


o 


* 




X 




* 






# 




• 




» 




# 








# 




* 




* 








♦ 


v- 






a. 
















































UJ 






UJ 
































__, 
















i 


ft 




a 




# 






♦ 




• 




• 




* 








* 




* 




* 








• 


u 


* 




IT 




ft 






* 




* 




• 




* 








* 




# 




• 








♦ 


DC 























































144 



>£> O O — C O C — C 



<C r\j h- 



a. £. 

ID O 

X a- 

t ID 



oooo -r o -* o 0*0 



00 00000 — 000 Of-ooo 



Q * S 



■- O 



K- UJ Z 

>- QL UJ 

O O _l 

O U. O 



145 



m c\j « or 



it c m — ' 








* 




<_> 


U 


♦ 


<o 


<f 


* 


JO 


* 


o 


* 


PO 


- 


HI 


N 


* 


in 


* 


4 
oo 


IT 


>D 


* 


* 


* 








in 


or 








* 




* 


* 




-T 








♦ 


(M 


* 








» 


IT 


# 








>- O 














































* 




I 
a 


U. 


* 






* 


pj 


* 


""* 


« 


"■* 








* 




» 








* 




* 




♦ 








♦ 






♦ 




* 




* 










* 




* 








* 




* 




♦ 


2- 




I/) 


* 






* 




* 




* 










* 




* 








* 




* 


o 


* 


a 


£ 




« 


o 


o 


* 




* 


c 


» 


o 

00 


O 


o 


o 


* 


P0 


* 


2J 


C 


M 


* 


(M 

in 


» 






« 


x a 


* 






* 




* 














* 




* 








» 




• 


-J 




















































3 




3 


D UJ 


♦ 






* 




* 




* 










* 


















<I 








S 












































00 


* 


LL 

o 






* 






* 




* 




» 










<i 




ft 








« 




ft 


* 


• 


UJ 


UJ 




* 






* 




* 




* 










* 




* 








* 




* 


00 






u. 






© 


o 


♦ 


p- 




00 


» 


p- 


o 




e 


♦ 




* 




o 


c 


* 


IT 


# 


a. 


















f^ 


































LU 


* 




z 










» 








♦ 










♦ 




♦ 








♦ 




♦ 


o 






■X- 
















































* 














» 




♦ 




* 






















• 




» 
























































* 














* 








* 






















* 




ft 


o 


•» 




3: 




# 






* 




# 




* 










♦ 




m 








# 




ft 


£ 






a. 
















a 




au 


























2. 


* 




a. 




• 






* 


-* 


* 




• 










* 




* 








* 




* 


O 


* 




u_ 




* 






* 




* 




* 










* 




* 








«. 




• 


CL 
























































t ♦ 



t 2 t 



146 



•* IN # IN # IN 



<X > 
UJ a 

a. r> 

-> 
x -z 



■a « r i 



I on c£ 
I > O 

I X u. 



I UJ O 
! X O- 



C O O O O * PvJ 



MO* f\ * ci 



a. i u, 

Ms 



fO*OOf<-iO©*C 



o o * © ♦ c 



147 



tt >- 

UJ a 

a. Z3 

—> 

x z 



g UJ + t*\ ft 

i- u 

t/> * » 

I u. # 

a 

« 

00 



U. K 

LL -J 
O =5 



148 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



Police Employee Data 

The Uniform Crime Reporting Program in Maryland incorpo- 
rates the collection of pertinent data relating to the police of the 
State. Information regarding police employee strength is discussed 
in this section. 

This information is submitted by county, municipal, and 
state law enforcement agencies and compiled on an annual basis. 
Specific information concerning the number of law enforcement employ- 
ees reflects the status as of October 31, 1984. 



Law Enforcement Employee Rates 

In 1984, the average number of full-time law enforcement 
employees (county, municipal and state) including civilian employees 
amounted to 3.3 for each 1,000 inhabitants of the State. The rate 
based on sworn personnel only (excluding civilians), amounted to 
2.6 per 1,000 population. In 1983, the average number of full-time 
law enforcement employees amounted to 3.3 for each 1,000 inhabitants 
and 2.6 sworn personnel per 1,000 inhabitants of the State. 

The ratio of law enforcement employees per 1,000 popula- 
tion in any given area or municipality is influenced by a number of 
factors, much the same as the crime rate. The determination of law 
enforcement strength for a given county or municipality is based on 
factors such as population density, size and character of the commu- 
nity, geographic location, proximity to metropolitan areas, and 
other conditions which exist in the area generating the need for 
law enforcement services. Employee rates also differ among agencies 
since, in particular, there is a wide variation in the responsibili- 
ties and level of activity within various law enforcement agencies. 
The information in this section relates to reported police employee 
strength and should not be interpreted as recommended strength for 
any area. 



Civilian Employees 

The personnel of each law enforcement agency differ as to 
the demands and responsibilities placed before them. Many police 
officers are fully occupied with clerical tasks and are not free to 
perform active police duties. Some police administrators use civi- 
lians in this capacity, thus freeing the sworn personnel for actual 
police related services. 

As of October 31, 1984, 2,970 or 14 percent of the total 
number of police employees in Maryland were civilians. 



149 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE RATES 



REGION I 



Caroline County 
Cecil County 
Dorchester County 
Kent County 
Queen Anne's County 
Somerset County 
Talbot County 
Wicomico County 
Worcester County 



'NUMBER SWORN 


**RATE 


773 


2.5 


48 


2.0 


153 


2.4 


61 


1.9 


29 


1.7 


50 


1.9 


44 


2.3 


78 


2.9 


158 


2.4 


152 


4.8 



REGION II 



304 



1.7 



Calvert County 
Charles County 
St. Mary's County 



64 


1.7 


163 


2.0 


77 


1.2 



REGION III 



713 



1.6 



Allegany County 
Carroll County 
Frederick County 
Garrett County 
Washington County 



164 


2.0 


159 


1.5 


191 


1.6 


39 


1.4 


160 


1.4 



REGION IV 



2,425 



1.9 



Montgomery County 
Pr. George's County 



989 
1,436 



1.6 
2.1 



REGION V 



6,558 



3.0 



Baltimore City 
Anne Arundel County 
Baltimore County 
Harford County 
Howard County 



3,031 


3.8 


803 


2.0 


1,834 . 


2.7 


309 


2.0 


276 


2.1 



PARKS 



641 



STATE TOTAL 



11 ,414 



2.6 



*Number sworn persons only 
**Rate per 1,000 population 



150 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
TOTAL SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



REGION I 

CAROLINE COUNTY 

Denton 

Federal sburg 
Goldsboro 
Greensboro 
Preston 
Ridgely 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 

CECIL COUNTY 

Chesapeake City 

Elkton 

North East 

Port Deposit 

Rising Sun 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 129 101 28 117 12 



DORCHESTER COUNTY 82 61 21 74 

Cambridge 
Hurlock 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Pol ice 



KENT COUNTY 

Chestertown 
Rock Hall 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



QUEEN ANNE'S COUNTY 

Centreville 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



993 


773 


220 


833 


160 


74 


48 


26 


63 


11 


7 


7 





7 





6 


6 





6 





1 


1 





1 





2 


2 





2 





2 


2 





2 





2 


2 





2 





38 


12 


26 


29 


9 


16 


16 





14 


2 


189 


153 


36 


166 


23 


2 


2 





1 


1 


21 


17 


4 


17 


4 


5 


4 


1 


4 


1 


4 


3 


1 


3 


1 


4 


4 





3 


1 


24 


22 


2 


21 


3 



37 

5 

27 

13 


29 

5 

14 

13 


8 



13 




31 

5 

26 

12 


6 


1 
1 


40 


29 


11 


29 


11 


9 

3 

20 

8 


8 

3 

10 

8 


1 



10 




7 

3 

11 

8 


2 


9 



59 


50 


9 


51 


8 


7 
12 

40 


7 
11 
32 



1 
8 


7 
12 
32 




8 



151 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



SOMERSET COUNTY 



50 



44 



44 



Crisfield 

Princess Anne 

Univ. of Md. Eastern Sh. 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Pol ice 


15 
5 

11 
6 

13 


10 
5 

10 
6 

13 


5 

1 




12 
5 
9 
5 

13 


3 

2 
1 



TALBOT COUNTY 


109 


78 


31 


85 


24 


Easton 

Oxford 

St. Michaels 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Police 


33 

3 

5 

21 

47 


24 

3 

5 

11 

35 


9 





10 

12 


24 

2 

5 

14 

40 


9 
1 


7 
7 


WICOMICO COUNTY 


194 


158 


36 


169 


25 


Del mar 

Fruitland 

Sal isbury 

Salisbury St. College 

Sheriff's Dept. 

State Pol ice 


6 
5 
58 
14 
27 
84 


5 
5 
48 
13 
24 
63 


1 


10 

1 

3 
21 


6 
5 
50 
13 
24 
71 




8 
1 
3 
13 


WORCESTER COUNTY 


196 


152 


44 


152 


44 


Berl in 
Ocean City 
Ocean Pines 
Pocomoke City 
Snow Hill 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Pol ice 


7 
94 
15 
15 

6 
23 
36 


6 
73 
15 
11 

6 
16 
25 


1 
21 

4 

7 
11 


6 
76 
10 
11 

6 
16 
27 


1 
18 
5 
4 

7 
9 


REGION II 


376 


304 


72 


333 


43 


CALVERT COUNTY 


67 


64 


3 


62 


5 


North Beach 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


7 
21 
39 


7 
19 
38 



2 

1 


7 
18 
37 



3 
2 



152 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER 
SWORN 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
CIVILIAN MALE EEMALE 



CHARLES COUNTY 



200 



163 



37 



173 



22 



La Plata 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


114 


101 


13 


100 


14 


State Police 


85 


61 


24 


77 


8 



ST. MARY'S COUNTY 



109 



11 



32 



93 



16 



St. Mary's College 


8 


8 





7 


1 


Sheriff's Dept. 


55 


35 


20 


46 


9 


State Police 


46 


34 


12 


40 


6 


REGION III 


920 


713 


207 


783 


137 


ALLEGANY COUNTY 


199 


164 


35 


175 


24 


Cumberland 


62 


51 


11 


54 


8 


Frostburg 


17 


13 


4 


15 


2 


Frostburg St. College 


18 


17 


1 


15 


3 


Lonaconing 


3 


3 





3 





Luke 


2 


2 





2 





Westernport 


8 


8 





5 


3 


State's Att. Office 


7 


1 


6 


4 


3 


Sheriff's Dept. 


18 


17 


1 


18 





State Police 


64 


52 


12 


59 


5 



CARROLL COUNTY 



179 



159 



20 



150 



29 



Hampstead 


2 


2 





2 





Manchester 


1 


1 





1 





New Windsor 

















Sykesville 


6 


5 


1 


3 


3 


Taneytown 


4 


3 


1 


3 


1 


Westminster 


25 


20 


5 


21 


4 


Sheriff's Dept. 


44 


44 





32 


12 


State Pol ice 


97 


84 


13 


88 


9 



FREDERICK COUNTY 



232 



191 



41 



195 



37 



Brunswick 
Emmi tsburg 
Frederick 
Thurmont 



11 


9 


2 


10 


1 


3 


3 





3 





79 


65 


14 


60 


19 


4 


4 





4 






153 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



FREDERICK COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 

Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 



40 
95 



36 

74 



33 

85 



7 

10 



GARRETT COUNTY 



47 



39 



43 



Oakland 


4 


4 





4 





Sheriff's Dept. 


24 


17 


7 


21 


3 


State Police 


19 


18 


1 


18 


1 



WASHINGTON COUNTY 



263 



160 



103 



220 



43 



Hagerstown 
Hancock 
Smithsburg 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


101 
4 
1 

100 
57 


78 

3 

1 

33 

45 


REGION IV 


3,104 


2,425 


MONTGOMERY COUNTY 


1,224 


989 


Chevy Chase 
Gaithersburg 
Md. Nat. Cap. Park 
Montgomery Co . 
Rockvill e 
Takoma Park 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Police 


9 

9 

71 

937 

36 
38 
80 
44 


8 
8 
57 
749 
27 
32 
72 
36 



23 


86 


15 


1 


3 


1 





1 





67 


80 


20 


12 


50 


7 



679 2,416 688 

235 951 273 



1 


9 





1 


7 


2 


14 


60 


11 


88 


721 


216 


9 


26 


10 


6 


29 


9 


8 


61 


19 


8 


38 


6 



PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 



1,880 



1,436 



444 1 ,465 



415 



Berwyn Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Bladensburg 


17 


12 


5 


12 


5 


Bowie State College 


15 


11 


4 


12 


3 


Capitol Heights 


3 


3 





3 





Cheverly 


8 


8 





8 





Col mar Manor 


2 


2 





1 


1 


Cottage City 


7 


5 


2 


6 


1 


District Heights 


9 


8 


1 


8 


1 



154 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



PR. GEORGE'S COUNTY 












(Cont'd) 












Edmonston 


4 


4 





4 





Fairmount Heights 


1 


1 





1 





Forest Heights 


6 


5 


1 


6 





Glen Arden 


3 


2 


1 


2 


1 


Greenbel t 


42 


33 


9 


34 


8 


Hyattsvil le 


28 


21 


7 


21 


7 


Landover Hills 


1 


1 





1 





Laurel 


43 


31 


12 


36 


7 


Md. Nat. Cap. Park 


73 


62 


11 


59 


14 


Morningside 


4 


4 





4 





Mt. Rainier 


15 


11 


4 


11 


4 


Pr. George's Co. 


1 ,209 


900 


309 


916 


293 


Riverdale 


14 


9 


5 


10 


4 


Univ. of Md.-C.P. 


74 


60 


14 


60 


14 


University Park 


7 


7 





7 





Upper Marlboro 


1 


1 





1 





Sheriff's Dept. 


160 


127 


33 


129 


31 


State Police 


133 


107 


26 


112 


21 


REGION V 


7,954 


6,558 


1,396 


6,524 


1,430 


BALTIMORE CITY 


3,940 


3,336 


604 


3,299 


641 


Baltimore City 


3,541 


3,031 


510 


2,961 


580 


Coppin State Univ. 


16 


15 


1 


13 


3 


Morgan State Univ. 


29 


26 


3 


23 


6 


Mass Transit Admin. 


85 


60 


25 


71 


14 


Univ. of Balto. 


16 


9 


7 


13 


3 


Univ. of Md. at Balto. 113 


64 


49 


92 


21 


Sheriff's Dept. 


130 


122 


8 


117 


13 


State Pol ice 


10 


9 


1 


9 


1 



ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY 



994 



803 



191 



808 



186 



Annapol is 
Anne Arundel Co 
Sheriff's Dept. 
State Pol ice 



125 


100 


581 


455 


29 


29 


259 


219 



25 


94 


31 


26 


473 


108 





26 


3 


40 


215 


44 



BALTIMORE COUNTY 



2,298 



1 ,834 



464 1 ,842 



456 



Baltimore Co. 


1,492 


1,355 


137 


1 ,314 


178 


Md. Port Admin. 


76 


72 


4 


62 


14 



155 



LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEE DATA 



TOTAL 



NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER NUMBER 
SWORN CIVILIAN MALE FEMALE 



BALTIMORE COUNTY 
(Cont'd) 



Sparrows Point 30 26 

Towson State Univ. 34 26 

Univ. of Md.-Balto. Co. 25 19 

Sheriff's Dept. 44 40 

State Police 597 296 



4 27 3 

8 23 11 

6 23 2 

4 35 9 

301 358 239 



HARFORD COUNTY 



341 



309 



32 



280 



61 



Aberdeen 


35 


29 


6 


28 


7 


Bel Air 


28 


22 


6 


22 


6 


Havre de Grace 


25 


20 


5 


19 


6 


Sheriff's Dept. 


171 


171 





141 


30 


State Pol ice 


82 


67 


15 


70 


12 


HOWARD COUNTY 


381 


276 


105 


295 


86 


Howard Co. 


243 


190 


53 


190 


53 


Sheriff's Dept. 


22 


19 


3 


15 


7 


State Pol ice 


116 


67 


49 


90 


26 



PARKS & TOLLS 



1 ,037 



641 



396 



875 



162 



Md. Alcohol Tax Enf. 
Md. Park Service 
Md. Toll Facilities 
Natural Resources 
State Fire Marshal 



13 


12 


1 


12 


1 


488 


147 


341 


418 


70 


269 


247 


22 


202 


67 


222 


203 


19 


207 


15 


45 


32 


13 


36 


9 



MARYLAND TOTALS 



14,384 11,414 



2,970 11,764 2,620 



156 



COUNTY TRENDS 



1984 1983 1982 1981 



1979 



1978 1977 



Index Crime 

Sworn Low Enforcement Officers 



Carpi ini 

23,838 23,762 23,550 23,528 23,148 22.534 

505 656 722 779 627 683 



48 



42 



IB 



»3 



17 



.593 


22.600 


21 .840 


20.037 


481 


481 


509 


527 



Index Crime 

Sworn Law Enforcement Offi 



Cecil 

64,216 51,713 61,157 61,099 60.113 56.486 

2,068 2,231 2,373 2.572 2,390 2,403 



153 



112 



167 



150 



IS! 



55,194 54,901 

2,006 2,157 



56.320 53.726 

2,417 2,393 



Dorchester 

30,863 31,361 31,079 31,050 30,549 30,647 30,124 29,991 29,929 28.900 

1,082 1,187 1,490 1,517 1,411 1,305 1,133 1,223 1,332 1,369 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



61 



65 



hi 



61 



Kent 

16,877 17,124 16,970 16,954 



16,647 16,200 



Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Offi 



Queen Anne 

25,963 25,939 25,520 23,836 22,394 20,200 
760 814 828 679 625 611 



43 



49 



52 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Offic 



Somerset 

19,372 19,353 19,041 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



Talbot 

26,695 26,174 25,939 25,914 25,496 26,841 



25,784 24,948 
965 879 



Sworn Law Enfor 



Wicomico 

66,574 66,705 66,102 66,040 64,974 60,692 

2,795 2,948 3,590 3,658 3,842 3,356 

158 159 152 155 142 127 



60,743 60,281 

3,026 2,897 

126 124 



59,758 57,261 

2,685 2,023 

126 113 



Law Enforcement Officers 







Wo 


iCESTER 














31,953 


31,109 


30,829 


30,800 


30,303 


27,842 


27,845 


26,703 


26,795 


26,715 


2,675 


2,586 


2,801 


3,066 


3,125 


3,374 


2,659 


2,459 


2,370 


2,554 


152 


154 


147 


146 


145 


133 


130 


126 


104 


102 



Sworn Law Enforcement Offic 



Calvert 














34,904 34,871 


34,308 


31,548 


30,223 


27,500 


26,491 


25,930 


1,074 1,267 


1,231 


969 


778 


788 


746 


737 


62 59 


55 


53 


55 


61 


55 


51 



157 



COUNTY TRENDS 



1982 



]\)'-: 1 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



79,140 

2,964 

163 



74,271 

2,773 

157 



Charles 

73,599 73,530 

3,129 3,360 

153 151 



72,343 

3,298 

140 



67,202 
3,254 



64,900 59,758 

2,264 2,274 

109 105 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement 0ffi( 



St, Mary'; 

,393 60,837 60,780 

,596 1,826 2,086 



76 



74 



75 



59,799 
2,029 



53,509 

1,902 

71 



53,400 

1.838 

72 



50,455 

1,650 

58 



Population 


80,835 


Index Crime 


1,857 


Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 


164 



Allegany 

81,858 81,781 

2,189 2,473 



30,461 
2,474 



79,721 
2,322 



174 



174 



82,102 


83,923 


79,655 


2,211 


2,125 


2,329 


175 


168 


171 



Carroll 



Population 




102,737 


98,637 


97,748 


97,657 


Index Crime 




2,321 


2,182 


2,459 


2,635 


Sworn Law Enforceir 


,ent Officers 


159 


161 


138 


136 



92,641 
2,629 



82,407 79,066 

1,927 1,952 











Frederick 








Population 


122,120 


116,584 


115,529 


115,420 


113,557 


108,064 


103,748 


Index Crime 


3,960 


4,170 


4,361 


4,696 


4,457 


4,105 


3,448 


Sworn Law Enforcement Officer: 


i 191 


181 


189 


189 


205 


185 


171 



99,538 97,068 93,505 

3,306 3,521 2,956 



Garrett 

26,962 26,937 



24,810 23,660 22,689 

476 493 465 



Sworn Law Enforcement 


Officers 


39 


39 


43 


43 


45 


40 


35 


33 


31 


29 










Washington 














Population 




113,834 


115,768 


114,722 


114,614 


112,764 


109,767 


109,397 


111,000 


108,494 


105,782 


Index Crime 




2,799 


3,174 


3,367 


3,876 


3,910 


3,552 


3,464 


3,557 


3,798 


3,432 


Sworn Law Enforcement 


Officers 


160 


174 


173 


180 


190 


183 


182 


178 


173 


174 










Montgomery 














Population 




605,398 


589,400 


584,061 


583,513 


574,093 


576,776 


582,458 


5/5,310 


570,275 


571,436 


Index Crime 




24,253 


23,368 


27,500 


30,961 


31,474 


30,242 


26,034 


24,806 


24,360 


26,080 


Sworn Law Enforcement 


Officers 


989 


1,028 


1,011 


954 


964 


937 


964 


982 


923 


897 










Pr, 


George's 














Population 




681,610 


675,231 


669,127 


668,499 


657,707 


663,207 


671,342 


675,500 


685,948 


680,363 


Index Crime 




39,478 


41,112 


46,976 


52,832 


51,762 


49,087 


47,326 


46,559 


47,163 


48,734 


Sworn Law Enforcement 


Officers 


1,436 


1,391 


1,385 


1,337 


1,329 


1,311 


1,334 


1,468 


1,189 


1,139 










Balt 


imuni City 












Population 




788,604 


805,527 


791,175 


797,429 


784,554 


790,901 


781,730 


827,494 


860,974 


864,100 


Index Crime 




66,877 


70,080 


74,212 


79,102 


78,184 


74,909 


70,533 


68,310 


68,269 


70,411 


Sworn Law Enforcement 


Officers 


3,336 


3,056 


3,307 


3,273 


3,407 


3,385 


3,505 


3,666 


3,508 


3,406 



158 



COUNTY TRENDS 



1981 



1979 



1978 



Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



388,659 


379,967 


376.525 


376.172 


370,099 


16.955 


16,894 


18.775 


20.435 


20.316 


803 


780 


771 


744 


704 






Balt 


imore County 


671,586 


668,705 


662.646 


662,025 


651,337 


38,577 


38,774 


43.817 


47,183 


46,638 


1.834 


1.877 


1,981 


1,934 


2,006 



A nne Arundel 

361,749 363,169 

17.453 17,119 

677 S67 



347,538 340,345 331.390 

18.496 18.744 22.401 

650 635 605 



Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



639.872 
43.265 
1.964 



641,120 
38,967 
1.940 



643.363 642.369 642.154 
38.261 35.971 35.724 

1.871 1.879 1.769 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



151,550 
4,409 



148.188 
4.292 



Harford 

146,846 146,708 

5,179 5,887 

285 282 



146,422 


146,556 


5,792 


5,710 


284 


271 



140,650 136,805 129,059 

5,791 5,782 5,596 



Population 
Index Crime 
Sworn Law Enforcement Officers 



129,114 
6,609 



121,601 
5,744 



120,500 
6,079 



Howard 

120,387 

6,481 
262 



18,443 
6,986 



16,777 
6,221 



17,027 
5,659 



103,425 97,877 95,370 

5,119 5,101 5,371 



159 



DO NOT CikCuLATB 



■^h 41144 6/85